Plaintiffs' Proposed Scheduling Order

3 pages

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Impact area
- Education
Topic
- School Desegregation
Matter
- Sheff v. O'Neill
Case
- Sheff v. O'Neill
U.S. state
- Connecticut
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 1f3ed754-a346-f011-877a-002248226c06

Cite this item

Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Plaintiffs' Proposed Scheduling Order, 1995. 1f3ed754-a346-f011-877a-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/3eefc6f8-4230-458d-b6a9-b925601d5b7e/plaintiffs-proposed-scheduling-order. Accessed December 04, 2025.

Copied!

    S.C... 15255 

MILO SHEFF, ET AL. : SUPREME COURT 

VS. 

WILLIAM A. O’NEILL, ET AL. : MAY 10, 1995 

PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER 
  

The plaintiffs propose that the Supreme Court enter the following 

scheduling order: 

i. The parties shall prepare a joint stipulation of all facts 

which are undisputed. Each party may also prepare any additional 

proposed findings of fact (with appropriate transcript or exhibit 

references) and proposed conclusions of law. The joint stipulation 

and any proposed findings and conclusions shall be filed in this Court 

in triplicate on or before May 25, 1995 and shall be promptly 

delivered by the clerk to the trial judge, the Honorable Harry Hammer. 

24 The trial judge shall promptly review the stipulation of 

facts and any proposed findings and conclusions and shall file in this 

Court on or before June 15, 1995 his decision on each of the proposed 

findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, along with the 

joint stipulation submitted by the parties. 

  
 



3. Any motion for review of the trial judge’s actions shall be 

filed in this Court on or before June 22, 1995.   
4. The plaintiffs’ brief shall be filed on or before July 27, 

The defendants’ brief shall be filed on or before August 24, 

6. The plaintiffs’ reply brief, if any, shall be filed on or 

before September 7, 1995. 

7. The appeal shall be set for oral argument in the September 

1995 Tern. 

Plaintiffs, MILO SHEFF, ET AL. 

By 117 
Wes W. Horton 
MOLLER, HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C. 

90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
(203) 522-8338 
Juris No. 38478 

  

John Brittain 
UCONN Law School 

65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Martha Stone 

Philip D. Tegeler 
CCLU 
32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

       



  

Christopher Hansen 
ACLU 

132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10013 

Marianne Engelman Lado 
Theodore Shaw 

Dennis D. Parker 
NAACP-LDF 

99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

  
Sandra Del Valle 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

Wilfred Rodriguez 
NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL SERVICES 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06102 

CERTIFICATION 
  

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent by Fax to 
the following counsel of record on May 10, 1995:   

Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General 
Bernard F. McGovern, Jr., Asst. Attorney General 
Martha Watts Prestley, Asst. Attorney General 
STATE OF CONNECTICUT 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 056105 
(203) 566-7173 
FAX: 566-5291 

5   
Pf . Horton

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Plaintiffs' Proposed Scheduling Order

Impact area

Topic

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in