Motion for Leave to Proceed on Original Papers and Dispense with Printed Appendix

Public Court Documents
January 25, 1972

Cite this item

Motion for Leave to Proceed on Original Papers and Dispense with Printed Appendix preview

5 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
LDF Attorneys
- Norman J. Chachkin
- Jack Greenberg
Cooperating Attorneys
Organizations
Matter
- Milliken v. Bradley
Case
- Milliken v. Bradley
U.S. state
- Michigan
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- bb1b5180-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0

Cite this item

Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Correspondence from Roumell to Judge Roth, 1972. 7b11c9b0-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/8a8f371c-c805-460c-9e9f-403c92d81ab1/correspondence-from-roumell-to-judge-roth. Accessed April 05, 2025.

Copied!

    R iley  a n e> Roumell
A T T O R N E Y S  A N D  C O U N S E L O R S  AT  LAW

7TH F L O O R  F O R D  B U I L D I N G
W A L L A C E  D.  R I L E Y  

G E O R G E  T.  R O U M E L L ,  J R .  

D O R O T H Y  C O M S T O C K  R i L E Y  

J A N E  K E L L E R  S O U R I S  

L O U I S  D.  B E E R  

K.  P A U L  Z O S E L

DETROIT ,  MIC HIGAN <48226

March 6, 1972

T E L E P H O N E  

(313) 9 6 2 - 8 2 5 5

Honorable Stephen J. Roth 
United States District Court 
600 Church Street 
Federal Building 
Flint, Michigan 48502

We take the liberty of enclosing herein the original
and two copies of the Objections of Board of Education for the 
City of Detroit, and other defendants, to the Metropolitan Plan 
submitted by the State of Michigan and by way of an alternative, 
the submission herein by said Board of a "Metropolitan Detroit 
Area Integration Plan."

. The original, of course, is for filing and the two
copies are for the convenience of the Court.

_ _ We also advise the Court that we have not filed formal
objections to all of the State plans simply because their con
stitutional infirmities are obvious on their face. Our Objections 
primarily are to the one possible feasible State plan, Plan Three. 
We further_advise the Court that it is a showing of good faith 
that the City of Detroit Board of Education has presented their 
own plan accompanying the Objections.

Re: Bradley v. Milliken; Case No. 35257
Dear Judge Roth:

Thank you for your courtesies

Very truly yours

GTR: L 
E n d s .
Special Delivery

George T''‘'Roumell,

cc: Mr. Louis R. Lucas Mr. E . Winther McCroom 
Mr. Jack Greenberg 
Mr. Norman J. Chachkin 
Mr. Alexander B. Ritchie 
Mr. Bruce A. Miller 
Ms. Lucille Watts 
Mr. Robert Pressman

Mr. Wm. E. Caldwell 
Mr. Eugene Krasicky 
Mr. Theodore Sachs
Mr. Nathaniel R. Jones 
Mr. J. Harold Flannery 
Mr. Paul R. Dimond

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.

Motion for Leave to Proceed on Original Papers and Dispense with Printed Appendix

Impact area

Topic

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorneys

Organizations

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in