Motion for Leave to Proceed on Original Papers and Dispense Printed Appendix; Motion for Accelerated Schedule on Appeal, Affidavit of Roumell, Brief in Support of Motion

    #

No.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT 
OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, a school district 
of the first class,

Appellant,
vs.

RONALD BRADLEY, ET AL,
Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Southern Division

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ON THE ORIGINAL 
PAPERS AND TO DISPENSE WITH PRINTED APPENDIX

George T. Roumell, Jr.
Louis D. Beer
Russ E. Boltz, Attorneys
RILEY AND ROUMELL
720 Ford Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT 
OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, a school district 
of the first class,

Appellant,

vs.
RONALD BRADLEY, ET AL,

Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 
Southern Division

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ON THE ORIGINAL 
PAPERS AND TO DISPENSE WITH PRINTED APPENDIX

NOW COMES APPELLANT, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL 
DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, a school district of the first 
class, hereinafter referred to as Board of Education, by and 
through its attorneys, Riley and Roumell, and moves this Honorable 
Court, pursuant to Rule 30(f) of the Federal Rules of Appellate 
Procedure to dispense with the requirement that a printed appendix 
be prepared and filed with the Court, and permit the appeal herein



to proceed on the original papers. As grounds therefore, ap­
pellant BOARD OF EDUCATION would show unto the Court as follows:

1. The BOARD OF EDUCATION filed Notice of Appeal in 
this cause on this date, from an Order of the District Court 
on June 14, 1972.

2. This is a school desegregation case which has
been before the Court on three previous occasions on preliminary 
issues. 433 F.2d 897; 438 F.2d; ___ F.2d____.

3. The trial of this case on the merits consumed 
41 trial days, resulting in a transcript of 4,710 pages and 
408 trial exhibits.

4. That since the trial on the merits, there have
been further hearings concerned with the issue of the appropriate 
remedy for the finding of de jure segregation, resulting in still 
more transcript, and numerous exhibits.

5. That preparation of an appendix from this material 
will result in an enormous cost to appellant BOARD OF EDUCATION, 
and that appellant is ill-able to afford this cost, due to the 
substantial expenses incurred to date in the trial of this cause, 
and due to the inability of appellant BOARD OF EDUCATION to obtain 
sufficient financing for any of its principal operations. Should 
costs ultimately be assessed against appellant BOARD OF EDUCATION, 
the prodigious cost of preparing such an appendix in this cause 
would prevent appellant from implementing substantial parts of the 
relief demanded of it by appellees and awarded by the District Court 
below.

2



WHEREFORE, because of the substantial expense involved 
and the detrimental effect such an expense would have upon the 
appellant BOARD OF EDUCATION, should cost be ultimately assessed 
against it, appellant BOARD OF EDUCATION respectfully prays that 
this Honorable Court issue an order permitting the appeal in this 
cause to proceed upon the original papers.

Respectfully submitted,
RILEY AND ROUMELL

By
Beer

Attorneys for Appellant BOARD OF 
EDUCATION of the School District 
of the City of Detroit 
720 Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
Telephone: 962-8255

3



No.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT 
OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, a school district 
of the first class,

Appellant,
vs.

RONALD BRADLEY, ET AL,
Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Southern Division

MOTION FOR ACCELERATED SCHEDULE ON APPEAL 
and AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE T. ROUMELL,JR. 

and BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
and PROOF OF SERVICE

George T. Roumell, Jr.
Louis D. Beer
Russ E. Boltz, Attorneys
RILEY AND ROUMELL
720 Ford Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT 
OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, a school district 
of the first class,

Appellant,
vs.
RONALD BRADLEY, et al, 

Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Southern Division

MOTION FOR ACCELERATED SCHEDULE ON APPEAL

NOW COMES Appellant, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL 
DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, a school district of the first 
class, hereinafter referred to as "Board of Education," by and 
through its attorneys, RILEY AND ROUMELL, and moves this Honorable 
Court pursuant to Rule 27 to issue an order:

1. Reducing the time in which Appellants must submit 
briefs in the above-captioned appeal to twenty (20) days after 
submission of the record, or if the Court permits submission of



the appeal on the Original Record without an appendix, pursuant 
to Appellant's Motion For Leave to Proceed on the Original Papers 
and to Dispense With Printed Appendix, filed this same day, twenty 
(20) days after the Court's decision on said Motion;

2. Reducing the time in which Appellees must submit 
briefs in the above-captioned appeal to twenty (20) days after 
submission of Appellant's Brief;

3. And to set down for immediate hearing the oral argu­
ment in the aforesaid appeal for not later than August 7, 1972;

4. And for such other relief as to the Court may seem
proper.

This Motion is accompanied and supportedby the Affidavit 
of George T. Roumell, Jr. and a Brief in Support of said Motion.

Respectfully submitted, 
RILEY AND ROUMELL

Attorneys for Appellant BOARD OF 
EDUCATION of the School District 
of the City of Detroit 
720 Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226Date: June 22, 1972. Telephone: 313-962-8255

- 2-



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT 
OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, a school district 
of the first class,

Appellant,
vs .
RONALD BRADLEY, et al, 

Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Southern Division

AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE T. ROUMELL, Jr.

STATE OF MICHIGAN )
) ss .

COUNTY OF WAYNE )

GEORGE T. ROUMELL, JR., being first duly sworn, deposes 
and says as follows:

1. That he is one of the attorneys for Appellant BOARD 
OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, a school 
district of the first class.



2. That on June 14, 1972, The Honorable Stephen J. 
Roth, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of 
Michigan, Southern Division, entered an order captioned,"Ruling 
on Desegregation Area and Order for Development of Plan of Dese­
gregation. " .

3. That said order, a copy of which is attached hereto, 
and made a part hereof, requires preparation of a plan of school 
desegregation for the metropolitan Detroit area, including.an interim 
plan that may be implemented in the school year 1972-73.

4. That Appellant herein, BOARD OF EDUCATION, has filed 
a Notice of Appeal and intends to fully prosecute the appeal in 
said case.

5. That there is a substantial likelihood, based upon 
affiant's professional opinion as an attorney and counselor at 
law, that the ruling of the District Judge below was in error in 
finding de jure segregation on the part of Appellant SCHOOL BOARD.

6. That even should this Court grant Appellant's Motion 
to proceed on the original paper and to dispense with the appendix, 
the Federal rules of appellate procedure permit Appellant forty 
(40) days in which to submit briefs, and permit Appellees thirty 
(30) days thereafter to submit briefs, and that said total of 
seventy (70) days would not permit this Court to set this matter 
down for hearing earlier than the 31st day of August, 1972.

7. That after oral argument in said case, affiant is

- 2-



informed and believes that this Court would take some time in 
which to render a decision on said appeal.

8. That upon information and belief, for the aforesaid 
reasons, affiant believes that no decision could be made of this 
appeal prior to October 1, 1972. . ,

. 9. That the school year for the schools affected will
commence prior to said decision of the Court of Appeals, if said 
appeal is taken in ordinary course.

10. That substantial and grievous harm will result to 
Appellant BOARD OF EDUCATION should an interim order of desegre­
gation be implemented, with a subsequent decision of this Court 
that the District Judge erred in his finding of de jure segregation.

11. That upon information and belief, the United States 
Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit granted a motion similar
to the aforesaid Motion in the case of Bradley v. The School Board 
of the City of Richmond, Virginia, et al, - F2d - (4th Cir.1972) 
in scheduling an emergency appeal in said case.

12. That the aforesaid case is precedent for granting 
the aforesaid Motion of Appellant BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF DETROIT for early hearing by this 
Court.

- 3-



13. That therefore it is of the gravest necessity that 
this Court render a decision on this appeal prior to the commence­
ment of the 1972-1973 school year and that Appellant's Motion herein 
should be granted.

Further deponent saith not.

Date; June 21_____, 19 72 .

Subscribed and sworn to before me 
this 21 day of June, 1972.

€□ OckjcLctlb.i-v  $L.Ka.n.r
Notary Public, Wayne County, Michigan
My Commission expires:________

KATHLEEN A. HART 
Notary Public, Wayne County, Michigan 

My Commission Expires September 28, 1975 _ 4~



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT 
OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, a school district 
of the first class,

Appellant,
vs .
RONALD BRADLEY, et al, 

Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Southern Division

BRIEF
OF BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF 

THE CITY OF DETROIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

Where a case involves crucial issues of law, in which 
the public is vitally interested, and in which delay invites the 
danger of serious prejudice to the rights of the parties, the 
courts properly grant priority in the hearing of appeals. As 
then-Circuit Judge (now Mr. Chief Justice) Burger stated in



Superior Oil Company v Udall, 409 F2d 1115 (D.C.Cir.1969):
Having in mind the large sums involved, 
the large public interest in precision 
and secrecy of bids for the sale of public 
land leases, and in the careful procedures 
called for, the bidders and the public 
have a substantial interest in certainty.
...This consideration [in having the cause 
resolved surely and swiftly] caused Chief 
Judge Curran to expedite the trial of this ' ’ 
case and Judge Sirica as trial judge to 
expedite its disposition. We have similarly 
given priority to these appeals.

409 F2d at 1119.
These considerations apply with the greatest weight 

in the present appeal: First, extremely large sums of money
are involved, and appellant BOARD OF EDUCATION is ill-able 
to afford these, being in the direst financial straits. The 
appellant BOARD OF EDUCATION is further aware of the extreme 
public interest in this case, which involves the fourth largest 
school district in the United States, with several hundred 
thousand children affected by the rulings of the District 
Judge.

Moreover, far more than the "careful procedures" 
in a federal oil and gas lease case like Superior Oil, the 
most stringest procedures are necessarily concerned in such 
a sensitive issue as the finding of de_ jure segregation of 
a school district. It is crucial that the most careful 
procedures involved in such a case be passed upon by this 
Court.

That such accelleration for hearing of an appeal 
is proper is well known in Federal law. For example, in a 
case raising many issues similar to those presented in the

- 2-



present case, Bradley v School District of the City of Richmond,
- F2d - (4th Cir.1972), an accelerated hearing schedule was
granted by the Court of Appeals, and that where major questions
that demand immediate decision are presented, the courts have
promptly and expeditiously heard them. For example, in the
recent threat of a nationwide airline pilots' strike, the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia held its hearing on
Sunday. Similarly, in the case of the so-called "Pentagon Papers,"
United States v New York Times,328 F Supp 324 (S.D.N.Y.1971), remanded
44 F2d 544, reversed 403 U.S. 713, the Court of Appeals heard
the case three days after the District Court ruling, decided it
the next day, and The United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari and decided the case within the next five days I

The present appeal does not present questions of national 
security such as New York Times, but the issues raised are of 
such importance as to be co-equal with the issues raised therein. 
Because of the magnitude of the issues, and of the substantial 
and severe harm that must result to the appellant if there is 
only a belated finding that there was no power in the District 
Court to find appellant guilty of de_ jure segregation, it is 
essential that this Court permit an accelerated schedule for 
the course of this appeal. _

- 3-



Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the appellant, 
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, 
respectfully requests that this Court order an accelerated 
schedule for this appeal.

Respectfully submitted, 

RILEY AND ROUMELL

By __________
^Buss E. Boltz

Attorneys for Appellant
7th Floor Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Dated: June 22, 1972



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT 
OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, a school district 
of the first class,

Appellant,
vs.
RONALD BRADLEY, et al, 

Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Southern Division

PROOF OF SERVICE -
STATE OF MICHIGAN )

) ss.COUNTY OF WAYNE )

PHYLLIS G. GROAT, being first duly sworn, deposes 
and says that on June 22, 1972, a copy of the following was sent 
to the below named counsel of record in :the above captioned
cause:



(1) Motion for Accelerated Schedule on Appeal;
(2) Affidavit of George T. Roumell, Jr.;
(3) Brief of Board of Education of the 

School District of the City of Detroit 
In Support of Motion;

(4) Motion for Leave to Proceed on the 
Original Papers and to Dispense with 
Printed Appendix.



LOUIS R. LUCAS 
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
NATHANIEL R. JONES 
General Counsel, NAACP 
1790 Broadway 
New York, New York 10019
E. WINTHER MC CROOM 
3245 Woodburn Avenue 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45207
JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019
J. HAROLD FLANNERY
PAUL R. DIMOND
ROBERT PRESSMAN
Center for Law & Education
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
02138
ROBERT J. LORD
8388 Dixie Highway
Fair Haven, Michigan 48023

Of Counsel:
PAUL R. VELLA 
EUGENE R. BOLANOWSKI 
30009 Schoenherr Road 
Warren, Michigan 48093
RALPH GUY
United States Attorney 
Federal Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
DONALD F. SUGERMAN
2460 First National Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226

DOUGLAS H. WEST 
ROBERT B. WEBSTER 
3700 Penobscot Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
WILLIAM M. SAXTON
1881 First National Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
EUGENE KRASICKY 
Assistant Attorney General 
Seven Story Office Building 
525 West Ottawa Street 
Lansing, Michigan 48913
THEODORE SACHS 
1000 Farmer
Detroit, Michigan 48226
ALEXANDER B. RITCHIE 
2555 Guardian Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
BRUCE A. MILLER 
LUCILLE WATTS
2460 First National Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
RICHARD P. CONDIT
Long Lake Building
860 West Long Lake Road
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan48013
KENNETH B. MC CONNELL 
74 West Long Lake Road 
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 4 8013

- 2-



#

by mailing same in a sealed envelope with first-class postage 
fuily prepaid, addressed to the aforementioned counsel of

the United States Government mail.

Subscribed and sworn to before me 
this 22nd day of June, 1972.

ciqjjyo.-. k o o rL _________Notary Public, Wayne County, Michigan. 
My Commission expires: o>,̂ >câ ..TĈ  .

record at their aforementioned addresses, and deposited in

- 3-