Hello I am trying to navigate the following below:
Please put in this format
Issue:
(explanation)
Issue: what overarching issue was the court addressing or resolving?
Facts - what are the facts that the court described and cared about?
Rule of Law - what rule (statute, case, legal principle) did the court apply?
Application - how did the court apply the rule to the facts?
Conclusion - what result did the court reach?
Knowledge - for all
and "quote that wraps up the whole case.
AutoSave OFF wa Cooper vs. Anderson - Saved to my Mac Q Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat ? Tell me Share Comments Calibri (Bo... v 12 AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDc AaBbCc AaBbCcDc Paste BI Uvab X x|A DAY Norma No Spacing Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request Pane Adobe PDF Signatures x Office Update To keep up-to-date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. Check for Updates 358 U.S. 1 (1958) COOPER ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. AARON ET AL. No. 1. Supreme Court of United States. Argued September 11, 1958. Decided September 12, 1958. Opinion announced September 29, 1958. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.[1 3*3 Richard C. Butler argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were A. F. House and, by special leave of Court, John H. Haley, pro hac vice. Thurgood Marshall argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Wiley A. Branton, William Coleman, Jr., Jack Greenberg and Louis H. Pollak. Solicitor General Rankin, at the invitation of the Court, post, p. 27, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging that the relief sought by respondents should be granted. With him on the brief were Oscar H. Davis, Philip Elman and Ralph S. Spritzer. 4*4 Opinion of the Court by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BURTON, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER. As this case reaches us it raises questions of the highest importance to the maintenance of our ederal system of government. It necessarily involves a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution. Specifically it involves actions by the Governor and Legislature of Arkansas upon the premise that they are not bound by our holding in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. That holding was that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids States to use their governmental powers to bar children on racial grounds from attending schools where there is state participation through any arrangement, management, funds or property. We are urged to uphold a suspension of the Little Rock School Board's plan to do away with segregated public schools in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to upset and nullify our holding in Brown v. Board of Education have been further challenged and tested in the courts. We reject these contentions. Page 1 of 13 8409 words English (United States) Focus E + 120%AutoSave OFF wa Cooper vs. Anderson - Saved to my Mac Q Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat Tell me Share Comments Calibri (Bo... v 12 A A Aa Ap 24 T AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDdEe AaBbCcDc AaBbCc AaBbCcDc Paste BI U vab X X |A DAY Norma No Spacing Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request Pane Adobe PDF Signatures Rankin for respondent. Reported below: 254 F. 2d 277. SEPTEMBER 17, 1958. Dismissal Under Rule 60. No. 87, October Term, 1958. ALLEN N. SPOONER & SONS, INC., ET AL. v. PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY. On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Dismissed per stipulation pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court. Martin J. McHugh was on the stipulation for petitioners. With him on the petition was Thomas F. Daly. John M. Aherne was on the stipulation for respondent. Reported below: 253 F. 2d 584. t] NOTE: The per curiam opinion announced on September 12, 1958, and printed in a footnote, post, p. 5, applies not only to this case but also to No. 1, Misc., August Special Term, 1958, Aaron et al. v. Cooper et al., on application for vacation of order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit staying issuance of its mandate, for stay of order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and for such other orders as petitioners may be entitled to, argued August 28, 1958. ['l The following was the Court's per curiam opinion: 'PER CURIAM. "The Court, having fully deliberated upon the oral arguments had on August 28, 1958, as supplemented by the arguments presented on September 11, 1958, and all the briefs on file, is unanimously of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit of August 18, 1958, 257 F. 2d 33, must be affirmed. In view of the imminent commencement of the new school year at the Central High School of Little Rock, Arkansas, we deem it important to make prompt announcement of our judgment affirming the Court of Appeals. The expression of the views supporting our judgment will be prepared and announced in due course. "It is accordingly ordered that the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, dated August 18, 1958, 257 F. 2d 33, reversing the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, dated June 20, 1958, 163 F. Supp. 13, be affirmed, and that the judgments of the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, dated August 28, 1956, see 143 F. Supp. 855, and September 3, 1957, enforcing the School Board's plan for desegregation in compliance with the decision of this Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 349 U. S. 294, be reinstated. It follows that the order of the Court of Appeals dated August 21, 1958, staying its own mandate is of no further effect. "The judgment of this Court shall be effective immediately and shall be communicated forthwith to the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas." ['] [NOTE: This opinion was filed October 6, 1958.] ] Page 12 of 13 8409 words English (United States) Focus E + 120%AutoSave Cooper vs. Anders Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat 9 Tell me '35hare Geomments [an v A Calibri(Bo... v 12 v A\" AV Aav A) \"399$ BIgvabxzx2 Av/VAV N V AaBchDdEe AaEchDdEe AaBchDt AaBch Achl)' ,Q L! " [E 8m 1;, 0t, Normal No Spacing Heading1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request , Pane Adobe PDF Signatures 0 Ofce Update To keep up~to~date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. Check for Updates The case was argued before us on September 11, 1958. On the following day we unanimously afrmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 257 F. 2d 33, which had reversed a judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 163 F. Supp. 13. The District Court had granted the application of the petitioners, the Little Rock School Board and School Superintendent, to suspend fortwo and one~half years the operation of the School Board's court- approved desegregation program. In order that the School Board 5'5 might know, without doubt, its duty in this regard before the opening of school. which had been set for the following Monday, September 15, 1958, we immediately issued the judgment, reserving the expression of our supporting views to a later date]:l This opinion of all of the members of the Court embodies those views. The following are the facts and circumstances so far as necessary to show how the legal questions are presented. On May 17, 1954, this Court decided that enforced racial segregation in the public schools of a State is a denial of the equal protection of the laws enjoined by the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education 6'6 347 U. S. 483. The Court postponed, pending further argument, formulation of a decree to effectuate this decision. That decree was rendered May 31, 1955. Brown v. Board of Education 349 U. S, 294. In the formulation of that decree the Court recognized that good faith compliance with the principles declared in Brown might in some situations "call for elimination of a variety of obstacles in making the transition to school systems operated in accordance with the constitutional principles set forth in our May 17, 1954, decision." Id, at 300. The Court went on to state: \"Courts of equity may properly take into account the public interest in the elimination of such obsmoles in a systematic and effective manner. But it should go without saying that the vitality of these constitutional principles cannot be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them. "While giving weight to these public and private considerations, the courts will require that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling. Once such a start has been made. the courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an eflective manner. The burden rests upon the defendants to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. To that end, the courts may consider problems related to administration. arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, Page 1 of 13 8409 words III English (United States) Focus n 1250 _ \\. + 120%
