Letter from Jones to Rodak RE: Request for Extension

Public Court Documents
October 2, 1973

Cite this item
Letter from Jones to Rodak RE: Request for Extension preview

2 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Letter from Jones to Rodak RE: Request for Extension, 1973. 1369f3fb-53e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/5263c5a0-b205-4e5f-a93c-19cde5d7253e/letter-from-jones-to-rodak-re-request-for-extension. Accessed December 04, 2025.

    Copied!

    ̂?r h•■ j& ■ ■ ■
&»;• r " , • : . » ^ > r u » ,-»W f -
;!i&? ^ ' :"h it ’' M  ’

■ ■ ;
. ' '■

• . s *»; • /-;/. ■ •■: ■ . A
t l M  . ■ , ji ■

;.'J,Vr

:;V V', U '
•'"•';Vj', t :'

Honorable Michael Kodak, 
Clerk
United States Supreme i 
Washington, O.C

Dear Mr. Kodaki

I am an attorney of record for the original 
respondents In the above-styled cause. They are 
designated as respondents In the petitions for 
certiorari now pending In this Court.

Reluctantly, I am compelled to request an 
extension of two weeks within which to complete 
the preparation, printing and filing of our op­
position to the certiorari petitions. As In­
dicated during my conversation with you earlier 
today, I feel that a 30-day extension Is necessary 
to complete this task. Your consideration In 
agreeing to e two-week extension Is nevertheless 
appreciated. However, In the event the two-week 
extension proves inadequate, a further request 
for time will be made.

Counsel for respondents are located in four 
different cities. The necessity to consult during 
the research and drafting stages, in addition to 
the commands of the Courts upon one of our principal 
counsel, Norman J. Chachkln, to respond to a 
certiorari petition of the Chattanooga Board of 
Education and City of Chattanooga] the petition 
due in the Knoxville case and tne Northcross oral 
argument just completed In the Sixth Circuit, 
seriously impeded our efforts.

As I also indicated no prejudice will inure 
to the petitioners Inasmuch as respondents'



hf. V / '

s \
=

33 /

'■ ■ . i r

■' ■ ;,:em

■• .■ ■ ■ . « - -/v /:■

m3 /■'■...■ ' , .:; .fUfe. 3 333? , ■
:■ m  mt{m^..'

« *2 ~

.•> , s/ -■ i9■i
i-:.:

"3.Vil'V-/ill
amended complaint has bean filed In the District Court to 
which all parties have not answered and a referral of one 
aspect of the case was made to the Michigan Legislature,
where it now pends.* i i, < ; 'M ” ' ; _ ,/ ' rV ' - «

According to my records, the brief was due on October 
10, 1973. The extension of two weeks, if my records are
correct, will move the date to October 2k, 1973. Should 
your records vary, please advise so that » may confirm mine,

Thank you for your consideration and understanding.

Sincerely yours#

Nathaniel R, Jones 
General Counsel

NRJslew 
cc: Petitioners Counsel

-33',
fr'f-irr;

, 3 m /

f

■;v : -
' ' - > 3 ’ 'm 3  m :

*•

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.