Correspondence from Whelan to Judge Hammer with Memo of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Material
Correspondence
October 7, 1991
8 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Correspondence from Whelan to Judge Hammer with Memo of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Material, 1991. c1e836ac-a346-f011-877a-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/6efa0ced-1b07-4dce-b624-35f63f9eca2c/correspondence-from-whelan-to-judge-hammer-with-memo-of-law-in-support-of-motion-for-summary-judgment-and-supporting-material. Accessed November 23, 2025.
Copied!
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
FAX (203) 523-5536
Office of The Attorney General
State of Connecticut
October 7, 1991
Tel: 566-7173
The Honorable Harry Hammer
Superior Court
Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain
at New Britain
177 Columbus Boulevard
New Britain, CT 06051
RE: Bheff v, O'Neill, Cv. 89-03609773
Dear Judge Hammer:
It has recently come to my attention that the page numbers
were inadvertently omitted from the Index to our Memorandum of
Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and
Supporting Material. To make it easier for the court to locate
particular points in our memorandum and to assist the court in
developing a proper understanding of the legal issues being put
before the court in our Motion for Summary Judgment I am
enclosing a new introductory page and index to our memorandum of
law. The only change which has been made to these pages is the
addition of the page numbers to the index.
At the moment we are working on our reply to the plaintiffs’
opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. We
hope to have that to you by early November,
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
stant Attorney General
JRW/mu
Enclosure
cc: Clerk of the Court,
Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain
at Hartford
All Counsel of Record
CV :89-0360977S
MILO SHEFF, et al SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiffs J.D. HARTFORD/
NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD
Ve
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al
Defendants July 8, 1991
MEMORANDUM OF LAW_IN_ SUPPORT_OF DEFENDANTS"
MOTION FOR SUMMARY _ JUDGMENT _ AND _ SUPPORTING MATERIAL
(PART ONE)
The present Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants
Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Material is being
provided to the court in two parts. Part One contains the
defendants' discussion of the case and arguments of law. Part
Two contains the affidavits and other material being submitted in
support of this summary judgment motion. An Index to Part One
and Part T™wo follows.
INDEX
PART ONE - MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. INTRODUCTION canes scvssassvrssvsnssssevsesnssscenasssnsnnnsel
II. UNDISPUTED FACTSe snes svanssossssnssssssessevwntssssssssnsnns
A. FACT 1: The Defendants And Their Predecessors Have Not,
By Affirmative Act, Assigned Or Confined Children To The Hartford
Public Schools Based Upon Their Race, National Origin,
Socioeconomic Status, Or Other Status Which Might Be Said To Put
Children "At Risk™ Of Poor Educational PerformanCe. sess eserves vieb
B. FACT 2: There Is Not Now, And Never Has Been, A Distinct
Affirmative Act, Step, Or Plan Which, If Implemented, Would Have
"Sufficiently" Addressed The Conditions About Which The
Plaintiffs COMDIAL Ne ee sens nsnssstvstns vinsomusssensesvninesnnwessd
C. FACT 3: The General Assembly Has Adopted And The
Defendants Have Implemented Legislation To Address The Conditions
About Which The Plaintiffs COMPlaiNesssssorssnsssrsnteveen
sersvid
(Discussion of Analyses Found in Attachment to the
Brewer Affidavit, Exhibit 4)
1. Average Daily Membership (ADM); Conn. Gen.
Stat, § 10+261 1a) {2)Cecssducvrsnrsrivversvesld
2: Special Education, State Supported
Percentages; Conn. Gen, Stat. § 10-76g9.....18
3s Transportation, State Supported Percentages;
Conn. Gen. Stat. § YO ~ 260m. oso v sb anne nsrerelB
4. School Construction, State Supported
Percentages; Conn. Gen, Stat, § 10-2835a....19
CF Total State Aid Per Pupilecssscvsvssnneesee2d
FEE pe
il.
12.
13.
14.
15.
15.
17.
Education Evaluation and Remedial Assistance,
Grants for Public Schools; Conn. Gen. Stat.
SL O= LAO. isis a sv sinnis eine a sees sen nd?
Education Evaluation and Remedial Assistance
Grants for Non-Public Schools; Conn. Gen.
SEat, 5 101400 viesnsineacecoestsssisvi
snses nnd
Bilingual Education Grants; Conn. Gen. Stat.
S 10“ 7 0isisn aviv cininamuitisnin ny snsewisnsvinnversinh23
Interdistrict Cooperation Grants; Conn. Gen.
SEAL. 8 10=748 4 eet vevencevnnrssvnneere
ssrsd3
Agency Placement Grants; Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ XB =T 6B UB) +o vn sss besiseevinainvrinsvne
siviessensdh
Professional Development Grants; Conn. Gen.
Stat. 'S 10~15530. cassnesvsradssnsr
vsennanss2b
Teacher Evaluation Grants; May Spec. SesS.
P.A. 86-1, § 15 (repealed) .«... eo 0 0 0 vie vs se ied
Career Incentive Grants; May Spec. Sess. P.A.
86-1, § 19 (repealed) ceeeeescescccssccccnce 26
Teacher Evaluation Implementation Grants;
P.A. 87-2, 3 11 (repealed) ...ssssvrvsrnrve27?
combined Professional Development GrantSee+28
Minimum Salary Grants; May Spec. Sess. P.A.
86-1, § 2 (zepealedY saves vecnvosssss tunes nse
Salary Aid Grants; May Spec. Sess. P.A. 86-1,
5 3 (reDR3led) cs eennnecroessnsssssnvrsnrens2
~3ii-
General Education Aid; May Spec. Sess. P.A.
86-1, §§ 4, 6 repealed) cass ssresvscenassse3l
Teacher Pupil Ratio Grants; May Spec. Sess.
P.A. 86-1, § 5 (repealed) seesessscsesesssee30
Combined Salary Aid GrantS.eeceeccccececeeed3l
Education Equalization Grants; Conn. Gen.
Stat. §§ 10-262c through 10-262e (repealed)
and Conn. Gen. Stat. 83 10-262f through
E0620 as ats canis sininmesenanissvrnsveensnsarseIl
Vocational Education Equipment Grants;
conn, Gen. Stat. § 10-2653 et S€Geevervesse3d
Education Evaluation and Remedial Assistance/
Project Concern Grant; Conn. Gen. Stat. §§
10-140 (b) (2), 10=260 salen svnmans sins sasininns 3D
School Building Project Grants; Conn. Gen.
Stat. §§ 10-282 through 10-29 2b. ss vacservieeead
Telecommunications Incentive Grants;
Conn. Gen. Stat. § JOAN ts sie sc sin nnn sane sed?
Extended Day Kindergarten Grants; Conn. Gen.
Stat. EO ml It eas ies ainibininin es a aiehe ww pa Ny ee DD
summer School Incentive Grants; Conn. Gen.
Stat. § 10=74Dceceesesnscc
ecsssssnsvenes “+33
Young Parents Program; Conn. Gen. Stat, §
BAD oc ciois ons sin nsnin sin ssrswnsinensnnmeers39
Primary Mental Health Grants; Conn. Gen.Stat.
§ LOT Ole usvneeniitinmeisis
nessvevosse shines sviesdl
Drop Out Prevention Grants; Conn. Gen. S5tat.§
102002 oi tsi ainssnnniansnsrntsnnini
e siunvsnehD
-1V-—
31. Child Nutrition State Matching Grants; Conn.
Gen. SEA 5 10=21 0D censor ser nnsensennes sll
32. Priority School District Grants; Conn. Gen,
Stat. §§ 10-266p through 10-266r.cccceececss.dl
33. State School Breakfast Grants; Conn. Gen.
BEAL tS LO 2 OB Wess ss siss sass sonesvisssmynsicnndd
III. ARGUMENT: JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANTS
BECAUSE THE STATE HAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT WHICH VIOLATES
THE CONSTITUTION AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO JUDICIAL REMEDY
AVAILABLE TO THE PLAINTIFFS sssnnssrssrenvsnsnnvssnsonnee sd?
A. JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANTS
BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS ABOUT WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAIN ARE NOT THE PRODUCT OF STATE ACTION::eeeeeesd?
B. JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANTS
BECAUSE THE STATE HAS SATISFIED ANY AFFIRMATIVE
OBLIGATION WHICH ARISES OUT OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION sve ens sennsivesnssitnssssinssnsesnseietennssnisdd
C. JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANTS
BECAUSE THE QUESTION OF HOW BEST TO ADDRESS THE
CONDITIONS ABOUT WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN IS NOT
JUSTICIABLE css ss etassccvssssrsdsssnsrnnssseevnssnsnneld
Iv. CONC LTS I ON ste tees tosses simmons veinninnsssrvesnnveveenBh
Vs CERTIFICATION os aieivinieswieinis so ssnnsensssvnsisesesessesed?d
PART TWO - SUPPORTING MATERIAL
Exhibit 1; Plaintiffs' Amended Responses to
Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, February 19,
1991 (44 pages)
Exhibit 2; Plaintiffs’ Objection to
Interrogatories, September 20, 1990 (4 pages)
Exhibit 3: Affidavit of Gerald N. Tirozzi (2
pages)
Exhibit 4; Affidavit of Robert Brewer (2 pages)
with attachment (148 pages)
Exhibit 5; Affidavit of Elliot Williams (2 pages)
with four attachments (5, 6, 11 and 22 pages
respectively)
Exhibit 6; Affidavit of G. Donald Perree, Jr. (2
pages) with two attachments (2 and 9 pages
respectively)
Certification
-vi-
a Nntins »
Suite 1600
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 99 Hudson Street
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ann Tremont, CCLU
Ronald L. Ellis forrin lb of py Z AN
October 3, 1991
Support for CCEE Community Organizer
Enclosed is LDF’s check for $2500.00 payable to "CCEE" for payments to
the community organizer. Please transmit to the appropriate person.
PLE
Regional Offices
Contributions are The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is not part Suite 301 Suite 208
deductible for U.S. of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 1275 K Street, NW 315 West Ninth Street
income tax purposes. (NAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares its Washington, DC 20005 Los Angeles, CA 90015
commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 30 years a separate (202) 682-1300 (213) 624-2405
Board, program, staff, office and budget. Fax: (202) 682-1312 Fax: (213) 624-0075