Question

In: Economics

Green v. County school board—brief this case into four sections Facts Issues (the legal question the...

Green v. County school board—brief this case into four sections

  1. Facts
  2. Issues (the legal question the court took on)
  3. Holding
  4. Court reasoning

Solutions

Expert Solution

Facts: In New Kent County there were two public schools - one on the west side and one on the east side. Nearly half of the population in county was black, and the families were evenly dispersed throughout the county. But these the two schools were segregated 100 percent between black and white students. U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade prior held in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that it was unconstitutional to segregated schools but most of the school districts throughout Virginia maintained their operations as segregated in their schools even after the decision of the court.

A group of black students and parents maintained that no appropriate steps were undertaken by the board for school to desegregation as no white child had selected to go the traditionally all black school and nearly 15 percent of the black children attended the white school traditionally. It was asserted that there was availability of good options that would affirmatively cause integration. The decision of the court was reversed and held that the freedom-of-choice plan of the board was unacceptable as a sufficient approach to effectuate a transition to a system of unitary. Moreover, the board was ordered by the court to adopt steps for promptly converting to a system without a segregated school.

Issues: Does the Board's adoption of a plan - "freedom-of-choice" for the respondent School; that permits a pupil to select his own public school, constitutes compliance adequately with the responsibility of Board "in achieving a system of determining admission on a non-racial basis to the public schools”?

Holding: No

Court reasoning: The court concluded that freedom-of-choice plan was not constitutional as it failed to result in a unitary school system which is racially non-discriminatory. It was noted by the court that desegregation was no longer acceptable. The court ordered the board of the school in New Kent county for formulating a revised desegregation plan and to include other efforts, such as zoning


Related Solutions

Bostock v. Clayton County case 2020: FACTS ? ISSUES ? ANSWER ? REASONING ?
Bostock v. Clayton County case 2020: FACTS ? ISSUES ? ANSWER ? REASONING ?
Please brief the case for Scott v. Sandford. A Partial brief meaning focusing on the facts...
Please brief the case for Scott v. Sandford. A Partial brief meaning focusing on the facts and issues of the case
Please brief the case Dred Scott vs Sanford. Partial brief--- Facts and Issues only Separate Facts...
Please brief the case Dred Scott vs Sanford. Partial brief--- Facts and Issues only Separate Facts & Issues
I need a case brief for Mclaughlin v. County of Riverside (1991)
I need a case brief for Mclaughlin v. County of Riverside (1991)
Case Brief of DirecTV v. NLRB 1. what facts are important to the case? 2. What...
Case Brief of DirecTV v. NLRB 1. what facts are important to the case? 2. What issues is this case about? 3. What was the court's decision? 4. The reasoning behind the court's decision?
Brief the case Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. V. Wood in the order: 1. citation 2. facts...
Brief the case Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. V. Wood in the order: 1. citation 2. facts 3. issue 4. decision ( includes reason for the rule of law and analysis for the result of the preceding case)
Brief the following case: Harris v united states 1.Citation. 2 Facts. ... 3 Issue. ... 4...
Brief the following case: Harris v united states 1.Citation. 2 Facts. ... 3 Issue. ... 4 Decision. ... 5 Reason.
CASE BRIEF 7.2 Tiffany and Company v. Andrew 2012 WL 5451259 (S.D.N.Y.) FACTS: Tiffany (plaintiffs) allege...
CASE BRIEF 7.2 Tiffany and Company v. Andrew 2012 WL 5451259 (S.D.N.Y.) FACTS: Tiffany (plaintiffs) allege that Andrew and others (defendants) sold counterfeit Tiffany products through several websites hosted in the United States. Andrew accepted payment in U.S. dollars, used PayPal, Inc. to process customers' credit card transactions, then transferred the sales proceeds to accounts held by the Bank of China (“BOC”), Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (“ICBC”), and China Merchants Bank (“CMB”) (“Banks”). Andrew defaulted on the suit,...
Write a Case Brief on the case Pasquarella v. 1525 WIlliam St.
Write a Case Brief on the case Pasquarella v. 1525 WIlliam St.
The Tinyton Public School Board is taking bids on the city’s four school bus routes. Four...
The Tinyton Public School Board is taking bids on the city’s four school bus routes. Four companies have made bids. X denotes that a particular company did not make a bid on a particular route. Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Company 1 2500 3000 1500 X Company 2 X 4000 X 4000 Company 3 3000 X 2000 X Company 4 X X 4000 5000 Assume the bidder can be assigned only one route. Minimize Tinyton’s cost of...
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT