Correspondence from Clerk to Nabrit Re: Assessment of Costs

Public Court Documents
July 7, 1971

Cite this item
Correspondence from Clerk to Nabrit Re: Assessment of Costs preview

2 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hardbacks. Correspondence from Clerk to Nabrit Re: Assessment of Costs, 1971. 4e319d90-2e34-f111-88b4-0022482cdbbc. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/bef843e9-a71d-487d-9b90-96e4dca0a107/correspondence-from-clerk-to-nabrit-re-assessment-of-costs. Accessed June 02, 2026.

    Copied!

     [||36ddea24-b339-466c-b607-33ef2e0cd963||] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20543 

E.ROBERT SEAVER 

CLERK OF THE COURT 
July 7, 1971 

James M. Nabrit, III, Esq. 
10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

Re: Swann, et al. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board 
of Education, No. 281; Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Board of Education v. Swann, et al., No. 349 
October Term, 1970 
  

Dear Mr. Nabrit: 

Please refer to your letter of June 8, 1971, in re- 
gard to the assessment of costs in these cases, and the letter 

dated June 16, 1971, from Mr. William J. Waggoner, counsel for 
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. You state that 

costs in No. 281 should be allowed to the petitioners. Mr. 
Waggoner, representing the respondents in that case, who are 
petitioners in No. 349, states that the parties should bear 
their respective costs, 

The judgment of this Court, entered April 20, 1971, 
by its terms affirms the judgment of the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Under Rule 57(2), costs 
are allowed to the appellant when the judgment of the court 
below is reversed or vacated, which is not the case here. It 
appears, therefore, that the judgment was entered in accord- 

ance with the rule. 

In view of this, your comments regarding the amount 

allowable costs are moot. Similarly, the Charlotte-Mecklen- 
burg motion that the parties bear their respective costs is 

moot, since the judgment in these cases brings about this 
result. For this reason, the motion is being returned to 

Mr. Waggoner with a copy of this letter.  



The views expressed in this letter are my own, of 

course, as I have not consulted the Court on the matter. 
However, I trust this question was considered when the judg- 

ment was entered. 

Yours Pi truly, 

5 Fsbo . Laver 

E. Robert Seaver 

cc: William J. Waggoner, Esq. 
Suite 723, Law Building 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 [||36ddea24-b339-466c-b607-33ef2e0cd963||]

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.