Davis v. Prince Edward County, VA School Board Motion to Advance

    Suprem e C ourt of the United S tates
October Term, 1952

No. 191

DOROTHY E. DAVIS, BERTH A  M. DAVIS and 
IN E Z  D. DAVIS, I n fa n t s , by J o h n  D avis, T h e ir  

F a t h e r  and  N ex t  F r ie n d , et  a l .,
Appellants,

v.

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PR IN C E EDW ARD 
COUNTY, V IRGINIA, et  a l .,

Appellees.

A P P E A L  FRO M  T H E  U N IT E D  STA TES D IST R IC T  COURT FOR T H E  EA STER N  
D IST R IC T  OF V IR G IN IA , R IC H M O N D  D IV ISIO N

MOTION TO ADVANCE

T. J u s t in  M oore,
A rchibald  G. R obertson ,
T. J u s t in  M oore, J r.,

Counsel for Appellees.
H u n t o n , W il l ia m s , A nderson ,

Gay & M oore,
1003 Electric Building,
Richmond 12, Virginia.

J. L indsay  A lm o nd , J r ., 
Attorney-General o f Virginia.

H enry  T . W ic k h a m ,
Assistant Attorney-General 

of Virginia.
Supreme Court Building,
Richmond, Virginia.



Suprem e C ourt of the United States
October Term, 1952

No. 191

DOROTHY E. DAVIS, BERTH A  M. DAVIS and 
INEZ D. DAVIS, I n fa n t s , by J o h n  D avis, T h e ir  

F a th er  and N ex t  F r ie n d , et  a l .,
Appellants, 

v.

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PR IN C E EDW ARD 
COUNTY, VIRG IN IA , et a l .,

Appellees.

A PPE A L  FROM  T H E  U N IT E D  STATES D IST R IC T COURT FOR T H E  EA STERN  
D IST R IC T OF V IR G IN IA , R IC H M O N D  D IV ISIO N

MOTION TO ADVANCE
Appellees respectfully represent unto the Court as follows:

1. The above styled case is pending- in this Court on 
appeal from a final decree of the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond 
Division, in which the District Court held that segregation 
of white and negro students in the public high schools of 
Prince Edward County, Virginia, pursuant to Section 140 
of the Virginia Constitution, and Section 22-221 of the Code 
of Virginia, 1950, is not discrimination per se prohibited bli­
the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States. Upon a separate issue of fact under a charge 
of inequality of facilities, opportunities and advantages, the



2

District Court found that inequalities existed in physical 
facilities, curricula and bus transportation and ordered cor­
rection of the inequalities.

2. Final decree was rendered in the case on March 7, 
1952, and the order allowing appeal was entered on May 5, 
1952, but the record in the case was not transmitted to this 
Court until July 11, 1952, after adjournment of the June 
term, and Appellees are advised that this Court will not act 
on the pending Statement of Appellees Opposing Jurisdiction 
and Motion to Dismiss or Affirm until the October term, 1952.

3. Cases entitled Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of 
Topeka, etc., et al. (No. 8) and Briggs, et al. v. Elliott, etc., 
et al. (No. 101) are now pending in this Court, and this Court 
noted probable jurisdiction in those cases on June 9, 1952, 
and recognized the similarity of issues in the two cases in 
its order noting probable jurisdiction in the Briggs case 
which provides that “the case is assigned for argument im­
mediately following No. 436, Brown et al. vs. Board of Edu­
cation of Topeka, etc., et al.”

4. Appellees are advised that the Brown and Briggs cases 
are tentatively set for argument on October 14-15, 1952, 
and are further advised that the present case cannot be heard 
with those cases on those days, even if the Court should note 
probable jurisdiction in the instant case early in the October 
term.

5. All three cases are grounded upon the same major 
issue, namely, Appellants’ theory that segregation is dis­
crimination per se, but the instant case is the only one of 
the three cases where Appellants’ theory of discrimination 
per se is contradicted by facts which invalidate the theory.

W h er efo r e , in view of the vital public in terest involved, 
and the im portance of the issues presented in all three cases.



3

Appellees respectfully move this Court, if probable jurisdic­
tion be noted:

(a ) That this case be advanced for argument with the 
Brown and Briggs cases;

(b) That the date of argument of all three cases be 
deferred until the record and briefs in this case 
have been printed in accordance with the appli­
cable rules of this Court; and

(c) That this case be assigned for argument immedi­
ately following No. 101, Briggs, et al. v. Elliott, 
etc., et al.

Respectfully submitted,

T. J u s t in  M oore,
A rchibald  G. R obertson ,
T. J u s t in  M oore, J r .,

Counsel for Appellees.

H u n t o n , W il l ia m s , A nderson ,
Gay & M oore,

1003 Electric Building,
Richmond 12, Virginia.

J. L indsay  A lm o n d , J r .,
Attorney-General of Virginia.

H enry  T. W ic k h a m ,
Assistant Attorney-General 

of Virginia.

Supreme Court Building,
Richmond, Virginia.



4

NOTICE OF MOTION
You are hereby notified that the foregoing Motion will 

be filed in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the 
United States at Washington, D. C., on August 8, 1952, 
and will be presented to the Court when the Court convenes 
on Monday, October 6, 1952, or as soon thereafter as said 
Motion may be presented.

T. J u s t in  M oore,
A rchibald  G. R obertson ,
T. J u s t in  M oore, J r .,

Counsel for Appellees.
H u n t o n , W il l ia m s , A nderson ,

G ay & M oore,
1003 Electric Building,
Richmond 12, Virginia.

J. L indsay  A lm ond , J r ., 
Attorney-General o f Virginia.

H enry  T. W ic k h a m ,
Assistant Attorney-General 

of Virginia.
Supreme Court Building,
Richmond, Virginia.



5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that printed copies of the foregoing 

Motion and Notice of Motion were served by mail upon the 
following on the 7th day of August, 1952:

Counsel of Record in No. 101, Briggs, et al. v. Elliott, 
etc., et al.:

Harold R. Boulware, 1109^ Washington Street, 
Columbia, South Carolina;

Spottswood W. Robinson, III, 623 North Third 
Street, Richmond, Virginia;

Robert L. Carter, 20 West 40th Street, New York 
18, New York;

Thurgood Marshall, 20 West 40th Street, New 
York 18, New York,

Counsel for Appellants.

Robert McC. Figg, Jr., 18 Broad Street, Charles­
ton, South Carolina;

S. E. Rogers, Summerton, South Carolina;
T. C. Callison, Attorney-General of South Caro­

lina, Columbia, South Carolina;
John W. Davis, 15 Broad Street, New York 5, 

New York,
Counsel for Appellees.

Counsel of Record in No. 8, Brown, et al. v. Board of 
Education of Topeka, etc., et al.:

Charles E. Bledsoe, 330 Kansas Avenue, Topeka. 
K ansas;

John J. Scott, 410 Kansas Avenue, Topeka, Kan­
sas;

Charles S. Scott, 410 Kansas Avenue, Topeka, 
K ansas;

Robert L. Carter, 20 West 40th Street, New York 
18, New York;



6

Jack Greenberg, 20 West 40th Street, New York 
18, New York;

Thurgood Marshall, 20 West 40th Street, New 
York 18, New York,

Counsel fo r Appellants.

Lester M. Goodell, 401 Columbian Building, To­
peka, K ansas;

George M. Brewster, 401 Columbian Building, 
Topeka, K ansas;

Harold R. Fatzer, Attorney-General of the State 
of Kansas, Topeka, Kansas,

Counsel for Appellees.

Counsel of Record in No. 191, Davis, et al. v. County 
School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, etc., 
et al.:

Oliver W. Hill, 623 North Third Street, Rich­
mond, Virginia;

Spottswood W. Robinson, III, 623 North Third 
Street, Richmond, Virginia;

Robert L. Carter, 20 West 40th Street, New York 
18, New York;

Thurgood Marshall, 20 West 40th Street, New 
York 18, New York,

Counsel for Appellants.

T. J u st in  M oore,
J. L indsay  A lm o nd , J r .