Attorney Notes on Vernon Malone 1

    <o /> r0 U--

Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1969

No. 824

ANGELA WALKER, e tc ., et  a l .,
Petitioners.v.

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF BRUNSWICK 
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, et  a l .,

Respondents.

PHEM IE D. HAWTHORNE, e tc ., e t  a l .,
Petitioners,

v .

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF LUNENBURG 
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, et  a l .,

Respondents.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO 
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

F red erick  T. G ray
Williams, Mullen and Christian 
510 United Virginia Bank Building 
Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Attorney for Respondents
E m erson  D. B a ug h

Lawrenceville, Virginia 23868 
Attorney for County School 
Board of Brunswick County, Va.



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

P r e l im in a r y  S t a t e m e n t ............ ................................................................  1

Q u estio n  P resen ted  ....................................................................  2

A r g u m en t  ............................................................................................................  2

Co n c lu sio n  .................    4

TABLE OF CASES

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 ........    3

Felder v. Hamett County Board of Education, 409 F.2d 1070 .... 3



Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1969

No. 824

ANGELA WALKER, e tc ., e t  a l .,
Petitioners.

v.

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF BRUNSWICK 
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, e t  a l .,

Respondents.

PHEM IE D. HAWTHORNE, e tc ., e t  a l .,
Petitioners,

v .

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF LUNENBURG 
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, e t  a l .,

Respondents.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO 
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This brief is filed on behalf of the respondents County 
School Board of Brunswick County, Virginia and County



2

School Board of Lunenburg County, Virginia, in opposi­
tion to the granting of the Writ of Certiorari prayed for 
in the petition for the reason that the Court of Appeals for 
the Fourth Circuit did not abuse its discretion in declining 
to allow double costs and counsel fees.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Respondents disagree to some extent with petitioner’s 
statement of the question presented. Read literally their 
question would carry the connotation that both school 
boards were continuing to operate segregated school sys­
tems while prosecuting their appeals. Actually when these 
cases were presented to the Court of Appeals both school 
boards had completed the 1968-69 school year and both 
had presented plans for total integration of their facilities 
for the 1969-70 school year and no stays were requested!

ARGUMENT

I .

School Boards in southern states are today confronted 
with the unenviable task of seeking on one side to preserve 
public education, on another to obey the law which requires 
actions which in many instances are totally opposed by 
large segments of the public, on another to preserve suf­
ficient “political” support to assure the appropriation of 
adequate funds to maintain the schools and finally to main­
tain an educational program adequate to meet the needs 
of the children. It is little short of miraculous that they 
have been successful in so many localities.

The petitioners here would have this court establish a 
precedent which would punish school boards for taking an 
action calculated to preserve public support for the system 
and thus enable the board to provide quality education for



3

the children whom the petitioner’s have claimed the right 
to represent.

The respondents here were entitled to appeal as a matter 
of right. To have failed or refused to do so would have 
destroyed their leadership in the schools in the communities 
involved and dealt a severe blow to the hopes of bringing 
about a successful transition. This was not the time to 
lose the leadership that the public respected and would 
follow if it would follow at al.

In their brief petitioners rely upon Judge Sobeloff’s dis­
sent in Felder v. Harnett County Board of Education, 409 
F.2d 1070 (4th Cir. 1969) but surely Judge Sobeloff must 
be credited with understanding his own dissent and he 
presided over the panel which denied the counsel fees and 
double costs in this case.

We do not urge here that this Court should not, in a 
proper case, review the action of a Court of Appeals in 
declining to exercise its discretion to award counsel fees and 
double costs but we do submit that where, as here, the Ap­
pellants have not used the appeal as a means of delay, such 
relief is not appropriate and the action of the Court of 
Appeals should not be disturbed.

It should be noted in passing that Brown v. Board of 
Education, 347 U.S. 483, could easily have been termed 
frivolous while it was before lower courts—the “contentions 
had been foreclosed” (see petition p. 8) thus, the use of 
a penalty to shut-off requests for review would be a danger­
ous precedent to establish and unless it can be shown that 
the appellate machinery is being abused to delay the oppos­
ing party double costs and attorneys’ fees should not be 
allowed.

The heart of petitioners’ case is contained in this state­
ment on page 10 of the petition:



4

“In short, these are not ordinary cases involving stub­
born litigants; these cases are part of a pattern of 
resistance to integration, where the law and facts are 
perfectly clear but the school boards will not volun­
tarily take even the obvious step without litigating 
each point that might somehow be productive of further 
delay.”

The language is inappropriate. Here the school boards 
had filed plans for complete desegregation and had not 
applied for stays. It is, therefore, obvious that the motive 
of delay was not present.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated it is submitted that the petitioners 
fail to present a case in which certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,
F r ed er ic k  T. Gray

Counsel for Respondents

W il l ia m s , M u l l e n  and  C h r is t ia n  
510 United Virginia Bank Building 
Richmond, Virginia 23219

E m erson  D. B a u g h

Counsel for County School 
Board of Brunswick County, Va.

Lawrenceville, Virginia 23868