Ruling on Motion for Continuance

2 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
- Milliken v. Bradley
Case
- Milliken v. Bradley
U.S. state
- Michigan
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 01afcd67-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0

Cite this item

Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Ruling on Motion for Continuance, 1970. 01afcd67-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/58cb4437-7856-486b-8f0a-7ec8915d0f50/ruling-on-motion-for-continuance. Accessed December 04, 2025.

Copied!

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)
RONALD BRADLEY/ et al., )

)
Plaintiffs )

)
v.  )

)
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN/ et al., )

)
Defendants )

_______________ _____________________________________ )

jgvws

p A n
1 a

L * u
FREDERICK W. JOHNSON, C!es

JL
Tv : > ' X

CIVIL ACTION NO: 
35257

RULING ON MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

Defendants, The Board of Education of the City 

of Detroit, McDonald, Hathaway and Golightly, members of 

the Board, and Drachler, Superintendent of the Detroit 

Public Schools, have moved for a continuance of the trial 

of this cause now scheduled to begin December 8, .1970. 

Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

After consideration, the Court grants the motion 

for the following reasons:

1. It is apparent that a trial on the merits 

beginning December 8th would result in fragmentation of the 

proceedings because of the impending Holidays; and frag

mentation is obviously to be avoided whenever possible, 

entailing, as it does, waste of time and effort.

2. The legislatively ordered decentralization 

of the school system will require the full time of the 

officials and staff for an appreciable length of time.



/
#

3. It would be grossly unfair to the new 

central Board of thirteen members, only three of whom 

will be carry-overs, not to allow them time in which to 

warm their chairs and prepare for their participation in 

the trial on the merits.

4. There is a possibility that decisions in 

cases now before the Supreme Court of the United States will 

be forthcoming in the near future, and they may well affect 

the format and trial of this cause.

5. The order of this Court directing the implementa

tion of the McDonald Plan resolves the most urgent issue in 

the case, and in view of the September 1971 target date a 

continuance of the trial to some time in early Spring 1971 

seems feasible.

For the reasons stated we are granting the motion 

for a continuance to a date to be fixed by the Court after 

a review of its calendar, and its readjustment, to a date 

to be fixed. The parties will receive timely and adequate 

notice of the new date for the trial on-the merits.

DATED: December 3, 1970
at Detroit, Michigan.

- 2 -

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.

Ruling on Motion for Continuance

Impact area

Topic

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in