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 October 09, 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