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 November 23, 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