WIlliams v. Matthews Company Respondents' Opposing Brief

    IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM , 1974

No. 74-296

D. C. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

vs.

MATTHEWS COMPANY, JOHN MATTHEWS and 
JAMES MATTHEWS,

Respondents.

RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSING BRIEF

H. B. STUBBLEFIELD 
1200 Worthen Bank Building 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 
(501) 372-2121 

Attorney for Respondents

STUBBLEFIELD & MATTHEWS 
Little Rock, Arkansas 

Of Counsel

St. Louis Law Printing Co., Inc., 812 Olive Street 63101 314-231-4477



IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1974

No. 74-296

D. C. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

vs.

MATTHEWS COMPANY, JOHN MATTHEWS and 
JAMES MATTHEWS,

Respondents.

RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSING BRIEF

Respondents as petitioners on August 3, 1974, in No. 74-63 
filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to review the June 20, 
1974 judgment and opinion of the United States Court of Ap­
peals for the Eighth Circuit, now reported in 499 Fed. 2d S19 
(1974). Respondents reaffirm the matters set forth in their pe­
tition in No. 74-63 and continue their request for reinstatement 
of the judgment of the District Court, the relief sought by them 
in No. 74-63.



2

Inaccuracies appearing in the statement of the case in the 
petition of Mr. D. C. Williams are: on page 4 thereof, with 
respect to residential lots, there are no vacant residential lots 
in Lakewood, but all residential lots have been sold; on page
5 of his petition, reference is made about signs giving the price 
and size of lots, but the finding of the District Court with re­
spect thereto is, “John Matthews testified, and the Court finds, 
that * * * since December 29, 1969, the Matthews Company 
has not sold lots to individuals and that no signs advertising 
the company’s lots for sale have been posted, although a few 
older signs remained posted due to simple negligence on the 
part of company employees in failing to remove all of them” 
(Pet. p. A -19); in the first line of the second paragraph on page
6 of his petition, the September 20, 1973 Memorandum and 
Order of the District Court is incorrectly referred to as dated 
“September 20, 1974” ; and, on page 6, the word “known” is 
incorrectly substituted for the word “shown” in the quotation 
from the June 20, 1974 opinion of the Court of Appeals, the 
correct reading of the first sentence of the quotation on page 6 
should be, “ We think that racial discrimination by the defend­
ants in their real estate operations is shown as a matter of fact 
and law” (Pet. p. A-3). There is no basis for this quoted state­
ment from the June 20, 1974 opinion of the Eighth Circuit. 
The findings of the District Court were that Petitioner, Mr. D. 
C. Williams, “was not denied the right to purchase real prop­
erty because of his race. * * * He was in fact offered the op­
portunity to purchase on terms available to all persons. The 
procedure of selling to builders only was not adopted because 
of racial considerations and was not used, or intended to be used, 
as a ruse by which to exclude blacks” (Pet. p. A-31).

Mr. D. C. Williams on page 2 of his petition under “ Issue Pre­
sented” refers to “ a black plaintiff proves a major real estate 
developer has maintained a policy of racial discrimination” , 
but the facts in the instant case are “plaintiff has not shown that 
any member of the alleged class except the individual plaintiff



3

has attempted to purchase property in Lakewood or other sub­
divisions developed by the Matthews Company” (Pet, p. A-31). 
This finding of the District Court is approved in the June 20, 
1974 opinion of the Eighth Circuit (Pet. p. A -15).

The statements and arguments in the petition relating to 
“broad injunctive relief” have no application to the facts in the 
case at bar as found by the District Court. The recent case of 
Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 94 S. Ct. 
2925 (1974) is to the effect that the Judiciary should not be 
open to an arguable charge of providing “government by in­
junction” .

Respectfully submitted

H. B. STUBBLEFIELD
1200 Worthen Bank Building 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 
(501) 372-2121

Attorney for Respondents

STUBBLEFIELD & MATTHEWS 
Little Rock, Arkansas 

Of Counsel