Pullman-Standard, Inc. v. Swint Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Public Court Documents
October 3, 1988
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Defer Further Proceedings, 1972. 7f3ac90c-53e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/7af52bd4-90a8-4d49-8cbb-756292cbe4c5/memorandum-in-support-of-motion-to-defer-further-proceedings. Accessed July 18, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RONALD BRADLEY, et al. ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM G . MILLIKEN, et al.,
Defendants
DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
LOCAL #231, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF TEACHERS , AFL-CIO,
Defendant-
Intervener
c*. k .e .
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al..
Defendants-
Intervenor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
mpj
MEMORANDUM IN '
SU??C5T~CF^0TI0N
TO DEFER FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 35257
It is well settled that a court has inherent pone
to stay proceedings in control of its docket, after hai
ring the competing interests which will be affected.
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 243 (1936);
Delinger v. Mitchell, 442 F.2d 782 (C.A. D.C. 1971);
seas, 307 F.2e 76 (5th Cir., 1962); Kcrtro
Corn, v. Prindie, 105 F. Sup?. 460 (D.C. N.Y. 1952).
Among such competing interests is the orderly
course of justice measured in terms of simplifying issue
md questions of law which could be expected to
result from a stay in proceedings. CMAX. Inc. v. Hall,
300 F .2d 265 (9th Cir., 1962).
the
Landis V. ]
Deling*rr v
eabOi.1 V. i
Corn. v. P:
Amo:
course of ,
proof, and
result - .£.
several
# •
Consistent with the above principle,
Courts of Appeal recently postponed further action in
school desegregation cases pending a decision by the
Supreme
(Occurr
Ur. ied
Court in Keyes v. School District Ko. 1, Denver,
ing on March 2, 1972, in Johnson v. San Francisco
School District, 9th Cir.; on February 7, 1972
xn ;neros v. Cornu 'hristi Independentr Q V i'- iiv Dis-
tract, 5th Cir.; and on January 14, 1972, in United
States v. Midland Independent School District, 5th Cir.)
These actions are reminiscent of the Fifth Circuit's
announcement of October 1, 1970, postponing all decisions
in pupil assignment and related cases until the Supreme
Court announced its decision in Swann v. Cnarlotte-
Meeklanburg.
Conclusion
The logic of delaying court action when a higher
court's decision may affect the outcome of the pending
case ought to be extended here to the circumstance of
Congressional consideration of the President's proposed
legislation.
Respectfully submitted,
if] Kn '? \J •j-yUnurtn.' c>. V
DAVID L. NORMAN
Assistant Attorney General