Correspondence from Lani Guinier to Lazar Palnick Re Sherpell v. Humnoke
Correspondence
April 17, 1986

Cite this item
-
Legal Department General, Lani Guinier Correspondence. Correspondence from Lani Guinier to Lazar Palnick Re Sherpell v. Humnoke, 1986. b6e85fdc-e992-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/ef97094f-6267-401d-bf20-ef8c2f98f882/correspondence-from-lani-guinier-to-lazar-palnick-re-sherpell-v-humnoke. Accessed October 08, 2025.
Copied!
Less,UDfenseIt. April 17, 1986 Lazar Palnick L723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Re: Sherpell v. Humnoke, No. 85-2315 Dear Lazar: I enclose a brief in another case that sets out some of the evidentiary factors that might be added in the form of affidavits attached to a Motion to Reopen, a written objection to defendants' proposed remedial plans or a written submission supporting an aIl single member district plan- Letrs talk when you and John have had a chance to digest this - S incerely, Lani Guinier LG/mgw Encl. Contributions are d.eduttihlc lor U.S. income ta'r pnVoue The NAAGp LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATTONAL FUND is not part ol the National Association lor thc Advanccmcnt ol colore-d Pcople although it *aiiiiinoeo ui ir anJ sttaresfts-iJrimiii.rCnilo iqrltiigtrti. lor nas had lor over 25 ycars a scparatc 8olrd, program, statl, otlicc and budget NAACP LEGAL OEFENSE AND EOUCATIONAL FUND. INC. g9 Hudson Street, New york, N.Y. 10013o(212) 21$,1900