Haney v. Sevier County Board of Education Reply Brief for Appellants

    IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 
NO. 19,899

LELA MAE HANEY, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF 
SEVIER COUNTY, et al..

Appellees.

Appeal from the united States District Court for the western 
District of Arkansas Texarkana Division

REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS

JOHN W. WALKER 
PHILIP E. KAPLAN 
JOHN T. LAVEY
WALKER, ROTENBERRY, KAPLAN, 

LAVEY & HOLLINGSWORTH 
1820 West Thirteenth Street

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellants



IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 
NO. 19, 899

LELA MAS HANEY, et al..
Appellants,

vs.

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF 
SEVIER COUNTY, et al.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the western 
District of Arkansas Texarkana Division

REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS

There is little which needs reply in the brief of Lockesburg 
School District No. 16 because it fails to confront the issues 
which are presented to this court for decision.

We file this Reply Brief only to make clear the total 
absence of any justification for the plan adopted by the district 
court. As we pointed out in our main brief this plan was almost 
exactly that proposed by the white Lockesburg School District. We 
find it facially discriminatory but appellees did not advance any 
non-racial justification in their brief.



Furthermore, appellees completely failed to confront the 
applicable precedent we cited. There is nothing in Louisiana v. 
United States, 380 UoS. 145 (1965) which in any-•.waysupports the 
proposition for which appellees cite:, it on page 3.

Nor can appellees convincingly distinguish Fe.lder v. Ilarnsfrt 
County Bd. of Ednc., 409 F.2d 1070 (4th Cir. 1969). The Court of 
Appeals in that case was commenting upon the various defects of 
the plan submitted by the school board. It is true, as appellees 
state, that one of the defects noted by the Court of Appeals was 
the lack of any specific assignment methods to achieve integration. 
However, the plan did specifically propose the closing of black 
schools, a measure which the Court also found discriminatory since 
no non-racial reason for this move was put forth. It was in 
connection with this observation that we cited the Felder case in 
our brief.

Finally, a rereading of Brice v. Landis, Civil No. 51805 
(N.D. Cal., August 8, 1959) strengthens > our conviction that the 
law annunciated by the district judge is totally applicable to 
the situation in Sevier County.

Appellees’ brief requires no further comment and in order to 
avoid being redundant we will not reargue any part of our original 
brief. We do note that our contention at page 12 of our brief 
concerning the . m'obiv ation of the black Sevier County School 
District in opposing consolidation is confirmed by Mr. Hainen’s

- 2 -



letter to this court of November 4, 1969 announcing that the 
school district will not participate in this appeal.

Appellants respectfully pray that the relief requested in 
their original brief be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN W. WALKER 
PHILIP E. KAPLAN 
JOHN T. LAVEY
WALKER, ROTENBERRY, KAPLAN, 

LAVEY & HOLLINGSWORTH 
1820 West Thirteenth Street 
Little Rock, Arkansas 72202

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellants