Motion to Join Pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of the Supreme Court

Public Court Documents
September 22, 1970

Motion to Join Pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of the Supreme Court preview

3 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hardbacks. Motion to Join Pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1970. 060c8ce0-2e34-f111-88b4-7c1e527f53b4. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/bb8e4f53-00c9-4391-8bec-7d9ef2bd2183/motion-to-join-pursuant-to-rule-46-of-the-rules-of-the-supreme-court. Accessed June 02, 2026.

    Copied!

     [||20bad49f-760c-4042-b419-963c3e6bd6cb||] INTHE 

SUPREME COURT. OR THE UNITED STATES 

October Term, 1970 

No. 498 

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG 

BOARD OF EDUCATION, 

Appellant; 

VS. 

JAMES EF. SWANN, et al, 

Appellees. 

  

ON APPTFAL FROM A DECISION OF A THREE-JUDGE 
CCURT IN THE UNIT =D STATE 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH 

  

  

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 46 of the Rules of the Supreme 

Court, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education respectfully moves 

the Court for an order authorizing its joinder in the appeal filed by the 

  

  

  

  

Attorney General for the State of North Carolina with this Court in an appeal 

pending in the Supreme Court entitled North Carolina State Bearc of 

Fducation; Dr. A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent of Public Instruction; 

Honorable Robert VW: Scott, Governor of the State of North Carcling; 

Honorable A.C, Davis, Controlle-~ of the State Board of Fduca ion; 

Hon ARE Ww illiam K. McLean, Judge of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg 

  

  

  

 



  

    

    

        
  

  

  

ctober Term, 1970, No. 498, and in support thereof, respectfully 

hows unto the Court as follows: Un
 

1. The appeal in Case No. 498 arose out of the same civil action 

as the appedl in this case, said appeals having arisen from the final 

judgment of a three-judge district court entered on June 22, 1970, in a 

civil action pending in the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, -No.-1974, entitled James E. Swann, et al, 
  

Plaintiffs, v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, et al, and 
  

Honorable Robert W. Scott, et al, Additional Parties Defendant. 
  

2. The final judgment ordered, adjudged and decreed that a portion 

of the North Carolina General Statute 115-176.1 was unconsiitutional, 

void and of no effect. From that final judgment, the State of North 

Carolina appealed and the appellant herein gave notice of appeal tothe   
Supreme Court of the United States on the 21st day of July, 1970, a certified 
  

copy of which is attached hereto. The appeal was authorized by 28 Li. 

1253. 

1 

same appeal as the parties represented by the Attorney General for the 
~ | rs 

State of North Carolina in Case No. 498. The documents filed and the 

position taken by the Attorney General for the State of North Carolina i 

3. This appellant is interested jointly in the same judgment and the 

n 

Case No. 498 represent the legal position of the appellant and joinder in 

~~ 
11+ 

said appeal is authorized by Rule 46 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. 

WHEREFORE, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 

appellant, respectfully moves the Court for an order authorizing it to joi 

in the appeal by the appellants in Case No. 498. 

  

 



  

    

  
  

Respectiully submitted, this 

  

William J. Waggoner . 

—Weinstein, Waggoner; -Sturges, 
and Bigger 

1100 Barringer Office Tower 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

  

  

    

| “Benjamin S. Horack 
Ervin, Horack and McCartha 

| 808 East Trade Sireet 

| Charlotte, North Carolina 
| 

| Attorneys for Appellant 

l 
| 

| [||20bad49f-760c-4042-b419-963c3e6bd6cb||] 

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

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.