Correspondence from Grace Richardson to Peyton McCrary Re Whitefield v. Clinton

Correspondence
May 9, 1988

Cite this item

Correspondence from Grace Richardson to Peyton McCrary Re Whitefield v. Clinton preview

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

Collection
- Legal Department General
Creator
- Lani Guinier and others
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 1521149a-ec92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Case Files, Alexander v. Holmes Hardbacks. Order for Stonewall School District Plan, 1972. f208e909-d267-f011-bec2-7c1e52467ee8. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/25802960-68c5-4f12-b91e-3e8ec63459d5/order-for-stonewall-school-district-plan. Accessed August 19, 2025.

Copied!

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE AF 0 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI     

  

EASTERN DIVISION 

CHARLES KILLINGSWORTH, et al, 

| PLAINTIFFS 

VS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1302 E 

THE ENTERPRISE CONSOLIDATED 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al, THE 
QUITMAN CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al, and THE CLARKE 
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al, 

DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

This cause having come on for hearing on defendants', Mayor and 

Board of Aldermen of Stonewall, Mississippi Motion to Vacate Order, 

and it appearing to the Court that the parties have agreed to this 

order, 

IT IS THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 

l. That the order of this Court dated July 13, 1970, pre- 

liminarily enjoining defendants, Mayor and Board of Aldermen of 

Stonewall, Mississippi, from forming the Stonewall Municipal 

Separate School District is hereby vacated for the purpose of 

allowing defendants the right to endeavor, through appropriate state 

agencies, to establish within Clarke County, Mississippi a municipal 

separate school district for Stonewall, Mississippi and its immediate 

environs which conforms to constitutional standards. 

2. That before any such Stonewall Municipal School District 

shall be implemented, defendants shall submit their proposed plan 

for its formation to this Court for approval. 

Jurisdiction of this cause is retained. 

ORDERED, this the 1 dill day of 1972. 

HARE ae) 
\ tn i DISTRICT JUDGE AE 7 

— A ——— A x \ So \ 

: NaC J Xo ¢ he i RA 

FRED L. BANKS, JR. \ 
MELVYN R, LEVENTHAL \ 
Counsel for Plaintiffs 

J. 1 ¥ al -— 

Chuylsel fof Fend nts

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.

Correspondence from Grace Richardson to Peyton McCrary Re Whitefield v. Clinton

Collection

Creator

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in