Plaintiffs' letter RE Denial of petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition

    P H O N E  ( 9 0 1 )  5 2 5 - 8 6 0 1

M A R V I N  L.  R A T N E R  

R.  B.  S U G A R M O N ,  J R .  

L O U I S  R.  L U C A S  

W A L T E R  L.  B A I L E Y ,  J R .  

I R V I N  M.  S A L K Y  

M I C H A E L  B .  K A Y  

W I L L I A M  E .  C A L D W E L L

RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS
A T T O R N E Y S  AT  L A W

S U I T E  5 2 5

C O M M E R C E  T I T L E  B U I L D I N G

M E M P H I S ,  T E N N E S S E E  3 8 1 0 3

July 20, 1972 B E N  L .  H O O K S  

O F  C O U N S E L

John F. Shantz, Esq.
Dell, Shantz, Booker and Schulte 
222 Washington Square Building 
Royal Oak, Mi. 48067
Charles F. Clippert, Esq.
1700 North Woodward Avenue 
P. 0. Box 509
Bloomfield Hills, Mi. 48013

Re; West Bloomfield School 
District, et al., v.
Hon. Stephen J. Roth,
Court of Appeals No. 72-1670
Bloomfield Hills School 
District v.
Hon. Stephen J. Roth,
Court of Appeals No. 72-1651
Bradley v. Milliken,
C. A. No. 35257 
(E.D. Mich.)

Gentlemen;
We have received the orders of the Court of Appeals 

denying the petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition in 
the above-styled cases, but without prejudice to the rights of 
your respective clients to apply to the district court for 
intervention in the case which aggrieves them: Bradley v.
Milliken.

As you know, other school districts similarly situated 
to those which you represent have previously intervened in the 
district court and they, along with the State defendants in this 
case, have applied to the Court of Appeals for stays of two 
district court orders, with particular emphasis on the district



John F. Shantz, Esq. 
Charles F. Clippert, Esq. 
Page 2
July 20, 1972

court order of July 11, 1972 directing the purchase of school 
buses. As you also know, these defendants have raised and 
will be raising legal issues in the Court of Appeals substan­
tially the same as those raised in your petitions.

As we understand the thrust of your petitions in 
the Court of Appeals, you sought to have appellate review of 
district' court orders which affect the school districts which 
you represent. This letter is to advise you that plaintiffs 
would not oppose an application in the district court for leave 
to intervene for the purposes of appealing any appealable 
orders which have been or may be entered which aggrieve your 
clients. Cf. 3B Moore's Federal Practice 24.13 [1] ; Robinson 
v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 330 F.Supp. 837 (W.D. Tenn. 1971).

" Very truly yours,
RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS

William E. Caldwell Attorney for Plaintiffs
WEC/jsc
cc: Hon. Stephen J. Roth

All Counsel of Record