Cypress v. Newport News General and Non-Sectarian Hospital Association, Inc. Appellant's Reply Brief

    IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

NO. 74-2633

ARLAM CARR, JR., et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

PENELOPE ANNE JENKINS, et al.,

P laint if f-Intervenors-Appellants,'

v.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, 
et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal From The United States District Court For The 
Middle District Of Alabama, Northern Division

SUGGESTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

- Plaintiffs-appellants, by their counsel, respectfully 

suggest that oral argument in this matter may be appropriate 

and may assist-the Court in resolving the issues on this appeal, 

for the following reasons:



1. This is an appeal from a district court decree in

a school desegregation case approving a plan of pupil assign­

ment which is attacked by the appellants herein as inadequate.

2. Pursuant to the procedure established originally in 

Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 

F.2d 1211, 1222 (5th Cir. 1969) for appeals from rulings on 

remand in those consolidated cases, and subsequently made 

applicable by letter directive, to all school desegregation 

appeals in this Circuit, the briefing schedule on this appeal

was expedited and no oral argument has been scheduled. See, £.g_., 

Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board, 424 F .2d 320, 323 n. 1 

(5th Cir. 1970) .

3. The Briefs of Appellants herein were mailed on July

9 and July 25, 1974, respectively; the Brief of the United States 

as amicus curiae was mailed on July 26, and the Brief of 

Defendants-appellees on August 9, 1974. Reproduction of the 

record on appeal and transmission to the Clerk's office was 

completed on September 3, 1974. Thus, the matter has been before 

the Court for six months.

4. In their Brief, plaintiffs-appellants sought reversal 

of the district court's ruling and instructions to that Court

to implement a fully constitutional plan of desegregation "at the

earliest feasible opportunity and in no event later than the

2



Second Semester of the 1974-75 school year. . . That relief

is now impossible and the necessity for appropriate planing for 

the 1975-76 school year is close at hand.

5. Although oral argument in school desegregation cases 

before this Circuit has become the exception rather than the 

rule, but see, <2 .c[., Flax v. Potts, 464 F.2d 865 (5th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1007 (1972), we respectfully suggest 

that the presentations of counsel might be helpful to the Court 

in reaching a satisfactory resolution of the issues.

For these reasons, we respectfully suggest that oral 

argument in this case may be appropriate and we stand ready, 

on behalf of plaintiffs-appellants, to participate in argument 

of the case should the Court so desire.

Respectfully submitted,

SOLOMON 
FRED T.

S. SEA^, 
GRAY

Gray, Seay and Langford 
352 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT, III 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants

3



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 10th day of March, 1975,

I served copies of the Suggestion For Oral Argument in this

matter upon counsel for the parties herein, by depositing same

in the United States mail, air mail, postage prepaid, addressed

to each as follows:

Vaughn Hill Robison, Esq.
Hill, Robison, Belser & Phelps 
815-30 Bell Building 
P. 0. Box 612 
Montgomery, Alabama 36102

Hon. Ira DeMent 
United States Attorney 
P. 0. Box 197 
Montgomery, Alabama 36101

Joseph D. Rich, Esq.
William C. Graves, Esq.
Department of Justice 
550 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20530

Howard A. Mandell, Esq.
212 Washington Building 
P. 0. Box 1904 
Montgomery, Alabama 36103

4