Ake v. Oklahoma Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae and Brief of the Public Defender of Oklahoma County, The Public Defender of Tulsa County, and the Oklahoma Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association, as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner

Public Court Documents
January 1, 1983

Cite this item

Ake v. Oklahoma Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae and Brief of the Public Defender of Oklahoma County, The Public Defender of Tulsa County, and the Oklahoma Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association, as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner 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

Matter
- Glen Burton Ake v. The State of Oklahoma
Case
- Glen Burton Ake v. The State of Oklahoma
U.S. state
- Oklahoma
Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 66cb6826-ac9a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b

Cite this item

Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Order Granting Motion to Expedite Appeal, 1995. 2ecc1e96-a746-f011-877a-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/5306df34-68cc-478b-af47-949f9a3b8488/order-granting-motion-to-expedite-appeal. Accessed August 19, 2025.

Copied!

    S.C. 15255 

MILO SHEFF, ET AL. : SUPREME COURT 

VS. 

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

MOTION TO EXPEDITE APPEAL 
  

The plaintiffs move pursuant to P.B. §4187 that the appeal be 

expedited in accordance with the enclosed proposed scheduling order. 

Brief History 
  

The plaintiffs, students in Hartford and Hartford area public 

schools, brought suit under various provisions of the Connecticut 

Constitution. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the 

defendants and the plaintiffs have appealed. 

Specific Facts 
  

This case involves a matter of great public importance and the 

complete transcript of the proceedings has already been prepared. 

Legal Grounds 
  

This Court may expedite the appeal for good cause shown. P.B. 

§4187. 

PLAINTIFFS, MILO SHEFF, ET AL. 

— 

By 
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 06105 
(203) 566-7173 

FAX: 566-5291 

         



NC
) 

~
 SO
Y 

  

S.C...15255 

MILO SHEFF, ET Al. : SUPREME COURT   
VS. 

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

MOTION TO EXPEDITE APPEAL 
  

The plaintiffs move pursuant to P.B. §4187 that the appeal be 

expedited in accordance with the enclosed proposed scheduling order. 

Brief History 
  

The plaintiffs, students in Hartford and Hartford area public 

schools, brought suit under various provisions of the Connecticut 

Constitution. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the 

defendants and the plaintiffs have appealed. 

Specific Facts 
  

This case involves a matter of great public importance and the 

complete transcript of the proceedings has already been prepared. 

Legal Grounds 
  

This Court may expedite the appeal for good cause shown. P.B.     §4187. 

May 1%, 1995 
No Action Necessary. See order dated PLAINTIFFS, MILO SHEFF, ET AL. 

May 11, 1995. 
/ 7 

/ Jolie Trp) 3 =: 
el Deputy Chief C Wes W. Horton 
Notice sent to Sk dounsel: 151¥) 95 2 MOLLER, HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C. 

90 Gillett Street 
en ipa de v0 Hat ford, CT -06105 
Gaited son ATV (203) 522-8338 

Juris No. 38478 

       



  

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

SUPREME COURT 

NO. SC 15255 

MILO SHEFF ET AL. 

Y, 

WILLIAM A. O’NEILL ET AL. : MAY 11, 1995 

ORDER 
  

THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF MARIANNE 

ENGELMAN LADO, THEODORE SHAW, DENNIS D. PARKER, SANDRA DEL 

VALLE AND CHRISTOPHER A. HANSEN, FILED MAY 10, 1995, HAVING BEEN 

PRESENTED TO THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY ORD ER ED GRANTED, 

PROVIDED THAT ATTORNEY HORTON IS PRESENT AT ALL PROCEEDINGS AND 

SIGNS ALL PLEADINGS, BRIEFS AND OTHER PAPERS FILED WITH THE COURT 

AND ASSUMES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM AND FOR THE CONDUCT OF 

THE CAUSE AND OF ATTORNEYS LADO, SHAW, PARKER, DEL VALLE AND 

HANSEN. SEE ALSO P.B. §4108 92. : 

BY THE COURT, 

Pe AI o/s a 
  

DEPNTY CHIEF CLERK 

NOTICE SENT: 5/11/95 

MOLLER, HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C. 

MARTHA STONE 

PHILIP D. TEGELER 

JOHN BRITTAIN 

WILFRED RODRIGUEZ 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BERNARD F. MCGOVERN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 



SC 15255 MILO SHEFF ET AL. v. WILLIAM A. O'NEILL FT Al. 

  

MARTHA WATTS PRESTLEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

MARIANNE ENGELMAN LADO 

THEODORE SHAW 

DENNIS D. PARKER 

SANDRA DEL VALLE 

CHRISTOPHER A. HANSEN 

#267

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.

Ake v. Oklahoma Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae and Brief of the Public Defender of Oklahoma County, The Public Defender of Tulsa County, and the Oklahoma Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association, as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in