Biggers v. Tennessee Reply Brief for Petitioner

Public Court Documents
January 1, 1967

Cite this item

Biggers v. Tennessee Reply Brief for Petitioner preview

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

Date is approximate.

Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- e996b4d8-c69a-ee11-be37-000d3a574715

Cite this item

Case Files, Alexander v. Holmes Hardbacks. Response of the United States to Defendants' Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan, 1970. b91466c5-d267-f011-bec2-7c1e52467ee8. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/297ff98b-801a-4bcf-97cf-70f846c34ff2/response-of-the-united-states-to-defendants-motion-for-modification-of-desegregation-plan. Accessed August 27, 2025.

Copied!

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

JACKSON DIVISION 

UNITED STATIS OF AMERTC ) 

  

) 
) RESPONSE OF THE UN] TA 

v. ) TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR 
) MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN 
\    CANTON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, ET AL, ) 
Defendants ) 

    

The United States objects to the modification of the desegregation 

plan submitted by the defendant Canton Municipal Separate School District on 

lan would tend to reestablish the dual school fo
. 

I fi
o 

C system. The proposed free transfer provision for grades « through nine 

likely to result in three elementary schools with all black enrollments and 

school with a majority white enrollment. A unitary school ~~
 

7
 

nd
 

m
 

(S
V 

Jo
t 

fo
] 
=
 ~
~
 

\:
 

, under such circumstances. Green v. New Kent 
Wr T—— 

  

   

  

    drows vv. City nroe, (No, 29358 
creer ——- 

  

56h Civ. April 23.1970), 

  

  

Attorney 

Department of Justice 

   
SERVICE 

  

I, Daniel F.“Rinzel, an attorney for the United States, do hereby cer- 

the above Response to Motion by 

] . ' , RL be bt! : : ; 
1 \ ( YONT ~ a ~ OW + n i - Pat ( 1 4 ~ : [» a | ~~ C 4 [so oe YILNYRN MN NY 1 ~ AA VR CY A 

NOS1L 12 C OPCS of Same in tac United nouaves maia, POS Lage pre JA LG SRT RA SIS ISIC 0F 

Mr. Joe R. Fancher, Jr. Mr. Melvyn leventhal 

at Law 538=1/2 N. Farish Street 

) P, OO. Drawer 250 
(OYE ry A cx Pel nk be 4 J ) z ‘ " A A FINE (POR. (AR. ~~ ~ 
wAllLOLL Misslesi Ppl 390460 JdC Kson, Mlisslssil PPL 39202 

10 Columbus Circle su ite 2030 

New York s New York 10019 

This the /)4 Any of Awngust, 1970. 

  

DANIEL FF. RINZWKL 

Attorney 
Nenartment of Theatre

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.

Biggers v. Tennessee Reply Brief for Petitioner

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in