Hello I am working on a case debriefing and I am trying to figure out a templet, here I have attached the case I am working on. I need help on finding a formatting. We are to use the Marbury vs. Madison format Which I am confused on how to do that. Can someone help find the Marbury vs. Madison format?
-Something I am looking for is a template??? to where I can type directly into the document
AutoSave Cooper vs. Anders Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat 9 Tell me '3 Share E Comments A . . A V ' 8 [on V [E1 cahb" (B--' V 12 " A A A3 " A0 AaBchDdEe AaEchDdEe AaBbCCDt AaBch AaBchm ). A L!J " [E] m Paste Z I A Normal No spacing Heading1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Styles Dictate Create and Share Request 6 B I g v ab X1 x A v v v , g / Pane Adobe PDF Signatures Mayor. the Chief of Police, and the school authorities made no request to the Governor or any representative of his Massistance in maintaining peace and order at Central High School. Neither the Govemor nor any other ofcial of the State government consulted with the Little Rock authorities about whether the Little Rock police were prepared to cope with any incidents which might arise at the school, about any need for State assistance in maintaining peace and order, or about stationing the Arkansas National Guard at Central High School." Aaron v. Co_oger 156 F. Supp. 220 225. The Board's petition for postponement in this proceeding states: "The effect of that action [of the Governor] was to harden the core of opposition to the Plan and cause many persons who theretofore had reluctantly accepted the Plan to believe there was some power in the State of Arkansas which, when exerted, could nullify the Federal law and permit disobedience of the decree of this [District] Court, and from that date hostility to the Plan was increased and criticism of the ofcials ofthe [School] District has become more bitter and unrestrained." The Governor's action caused the School Board to request the Negro students on September 2 not to attend the high school "until the legal dilemma was solved." The next day, September 3, 1957, the Board petitioned the District Court for instructions, and the court, after a hearing, found that the Board's 11'11 request of the Negro students to stay away from the high school had been made because of the stationing of the military guards by the state authorities. The court determined that this was not a reason for departing from the approved owered the School Board and Superintendent to proceed with it. On the morning of the next day, September 4. 1957, the Negro children attempted to enter the high school but, as the District Court later found, units of the Arkansas National Guard "acting pursuant to the Governor's order, stood shoulder to shoulder at the school grounds and thereby forcibly prevented the 9 Negro students . . . from entering," as they continued to do every school day during the following three weeks. 156 F. Supp. at 225. That same day, September 4, 1957. the United States Attomey for the Eastern District of Arkansas was requested by the District Court to begin an immediate investigation in order to x responsibility for the interference with the orderly implementation of the District Court's direction to carry out the desegregation program. Three days later, September 7, the District Court denied a petition of the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools for an order temporarily suspending continuance of the program. Upon completion of the United States AttomeYs investigation, he and the Attorney General of the United States, at the District Court's request, entered the proceedings and led a petition on behalf of the United States. as amicus curiae, to enjoin the Governor of Arkansas and ofcers of the Arkansas National Guard from further attempts to prevent obedience to the court's order. After hearings on the petition, the District Court found that the School Board's plan had been obstnrcted by the Governor through the use of National Guard troops, and granted a preliminary injunction on September 1212 20, 1957, enjoining the Govemcr and the ofcers of the Guard from preventing the attendance of Negro children at Central High School, and from cthenrvise obstructing or interfering with the orders of the court in connection with the plan. 156 F. Supp. 220 afnned. Faubus v. United States 254 F. 2d 797. The National Guard was then withdrawn from the school. The next school day was Monday, September 23, 1957. The Negro children entered the high school that moming under the protection of the Little Rock Police Department and members of the Arkansas State Police. But the ofcers caused the children to be removed from the school during the morning because they had difculty controlling a large and demonstrating crowd which had gathered Page 4 of 13 3409 words U? English (United States) Focus n i250 _ \\. + 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%
