Correspondence from Lucas to Lord
Correspondence
March 20, 1972
1 page
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Correspondence from Lucas to Lord, 1972. 4b11c9b0-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/b3c4d1d9-7e1f-462c-a937-3b7fc5cf828c/correspondence-from-lucas-to-lord. Accessed November 23, 2025.
Copied!
P H O N E ( 901 ) 5 2 5 - 0 6 0 1
M A R V I N L. R A T N E R
R. 0. S U G A R M O N , JR.
L O U I S R. L U C A S
WAL T ER L. BAILEY, JR.
I RV I N M. S A L K Y
M I C H A E L B- KAY
W I L L I A M E. C A L D W E L L
RATNER, SUG ARM O N & L U C AS
A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W
S U I T E 5 2 5
C O M M E R C E T I T L E B U I L D I N G
M E M PH IS , T E N N E S S E E 3 8 1 0 3
March 20, 1972
B E N L. H O O K S
OF COUNSEL
Robert J. Lord, Esq.
8388 Dixie Highway
Fairhaven, Michigan 48203
RE: Bradley v. Milliken,
CA. No. 35257
Dear Mr. Lord:
We are in receipt of your request seeking concurrence
in procedures for recalling a prior order of the Court in
the above-styled cause. Your contemplated motion to recall
the Court s order of November 15, 1971, is in direct violation
of the Court's order pertaining to conditions on intervention
issued March 15, 1972. Insofar as you request concurrence of
counsel for leave to file such a motion, such request is also
in violation of the March 15, 1972, order, as the Court did
not make provisions for reopening issues previously determined,
by concurrence of counsel or otherwise. We, therefore,
decline both requests, and put you on notice that we consider
your efforts to reopen previously-determined issues to be in
contempt of Court. If you persist in seeking to file your
contemplated motion, we will move the Court to expel you from
participation in this cause, as you will have violated the
conditions under which you were allowed to intervene.
Very truly yours,
Louis R. Lucas
LRL:pw
cc: All counsel
Hon. Stephen J. Roth