Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board Motion to Dismiss or Affirm

Public Court Documents
October 2, 1995

Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board Motion to Dismiss or Affirm preview

Date is approximate.

Cite this item

  • Press Releases, Loose Pages. Fact Sheet on Seven Protest Demonstration Cases Decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, 1963. 51aa673c-bd92-ee11-be37-6045bddb811f. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/81c54588-1bf5-4b8f-8490-2d0a00de4280/fact-sheet-on-seven-protest-demonstration-cases-decided-by-the-us-supreme-court. Accessed August 19, 2025.

    Copied!

    PRESS RELEASE @ r 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
TOCOLUMBUS CIRCLE + NEW YORK19,N.Y. © JUdson6-8397 

DR. ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS JACK GREENBERG CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY 
President Director-Counsel Associate Counsel 

o> 

FACT SHEET ON SEVEN PROTEST DEMONSTRATION 

CASES DECIDED BY THE U. S. SUPREME COURT 

May 20, 1963 

AVENT v. NORTH CAROLINA -- Involves lunch counter demonstrations 

at a Kress Variety Store in Durham, N. C. on May 6, 1960, by five 

Negro and two white college students. Petitioners were convicted 

under North Carolina trespass law. Jack Greenberg of New York City 

argued the appeal for petitioners. Other attorneys for petitioners 

are L. C, Berry, Jr., William A. Marsh, Jr., F. B, McKissick, C. 0. 

Pearson, W. G. Pearson and M. Hugh Thompson of Durham, N, C, 

GRIFFIN ». -- Involves a protest demonstration by five 

Negro students at Glen Echo, a segregated amusement park in 

Montgomery County, Md., on June 30, 1960, Petitioners were convicted 

of trespassing. Joseph Raugh of Washington, D. C, argued the appeal 

for petitioners. Other attorneys for petitioners are Charles T. 

Duncan and Joseph Sharlitt. 

LOMBARD v. LOUISIANA -- Involves a sit-in lunch counter demon-. 

stration at a McCrory's store in New Orleans, La. by three Negro and 

one white student on September 17, 1960. Petitioners were convictes 

of criminal mischief. John P. Nelson of New Orleans, La. argued the 

appeal for petitioners. Other attorneys for petitioners are Lolis © 

Eli, Nils R. Douglas and Robert F. Collins of New Orleans. 

GOBER v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM -- Involves lunch counter demonstra- 

tions by ten Negro youths at five stores in Birmingham, Ala. on 

March 30, 1960, in defiance of a Birmingham segregation ordinance. 

Petitioners were convicted of trespassing. Mrs. Constance Baker 

Motley of New York City argued the appeal for petitioners, Other 

attorneys for petitioners are Arthur D. Shores, Peter A. Hall, 

Orzell Billingsley, Jr., Oscar W. Adams, Jr. and J. Richmond Pearson 

of Birmingham. 



325 

SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM -- Involves a conviction of 

two Birmingham Negro ministers, Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth and Rev. 

Charles Billups, for "inciting" the students in the Gober appeal to 

sit-in on March 30, 1960. Petitioners convicted of inciting, aiding 

or abetting to trespass. Mrs. Constance Baker Motley of New York 

City argued the appeal for petitioners. Other attorneys of record 

for petitioners are the same as in Gober. 

PETERSON v, CITY OF GREENVILLE -- Involves a lunch counter sit-in 

by ten Negro students at a Kress department store on August 9, 1960, 

in Greenville, S. C. Petitioners were convicted of trespassing. 

Matthew J, Perry of Columbia, S, C. argued the appeal for petitioners 

Other attorneys for petitioners are Lincoln C, Jenkins, JP /0F 

Columbia and Willie T. Smith of Greenville, S. C. 

WRIGHT v, GEORGIA -- Involves the arrest of six Negro youths 

for playing basketball on a city park court in Savannah, Ga. on 

January 23, 1961. Petitioners were convicted of unlawful assembly. 

James M, Nabrit, III argued the appeal for petitioners. Other 

attorneys for petitioners are B, Clarence Mayfield and E, H. Gadsden 

of Savannah, Ga.

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

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.

Return to top