Ronald Bradley v. William G. Milliken, Ronald Bradley v. Bd. of Educ., Etc., 468 F.2d 902 (6th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Ronald Bradley v. William G. Milliken, Ronald Bradley v. Bd. of Educ., Etc., 468 F.2d 902 (6th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jackson ex rel. Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hospital (ca10, 1992-05-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jackson ex rel. Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hospital
10th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
No. 5, 814 F.2d 538 , 539-40 (8th Cir.1987); Groseclose v. Dutton, 788 F.2d 356, 358-61 (6th Cir.1986); Liddell v. Board of Educ., 693 F.2d 721 (8th Cir.1981); Spates v. Manson, 6 19 F.2d 204, 208-11 (2d Cir.1980); Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 587 F.2d 1340, 1346-47 (3d Cir.1978); Reed v. Rhodes, 549 F.2d 1050 (6th Cir.1976) (relying on Bradley v. Milliken, 468 F.2d 902, 902-03 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 844 , 93 S.Ct. 45 , 34 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1038 , 94 S.Ct. 538 , 38 L.Ed.2d 329 (1973)); Taylor v. Board of Educ., 288 F.2d 600 , 601-02 (2d Cir.), aff'd 294 F.2d 36 (2…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School
10th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
No. 5, 814 F.2d 538 , 539-40 (8th Cir.1987); Groseclose v. Dutton, 788 F.2d 356, 358-61 (6th Cir.1986); Liddell v. Board of Educ., 693 F.2d 721 (8th Cir.1981); Spates v. Manson, 619 F.2d 204, 208-11 (2d Cir.1980); Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 587 F.2d 1340, 1346-47 (3d Cir.1978); Reed v. Rhodes, 549 F.2d 1050 (6th Cir.1976) (relying on Bradley v. Milliken, 468 F.2d 902, 902-03 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 844 , 93 S.Ct. 45 , 34 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1038 , 94 S.Ct. 538 , 38 L.Ed.2d 329 (1973)); Taylor v. Board of Educ., 288 F.2d 600 , 601-02 (2d Cir.), aff'd 294 F.2d 36 (2d…
discussed Cited "see" Gary Knop, John Ford, William Lovett, Ii, Ramando Valeroso, Gus Jansson, Pat Sommerville, Vernard Cohen, Jon Spytma, Robert Shipp, Butch Davis, Ron Mixon, Kerwin Cook, Cross-Appellees v. Perry M. Johnson, Robert Brown, Dale Foltz, John Jabe, Theodore Koehler, John Prelesnik, Jack Bergman, Cross-Appellants
6th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bradley v. Milliken, 468 F.2d 902 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 844 (1972), Reed v. Rhodes, 549 F.2d 1050 (6th Cir.1976). 3 Furthermore, while the requirement to provide inmates with adequate winter clothing is appealable as an injunction, we do not find that it might have a "serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence," and that it can be "effectively challenged" only by immediate appeal.
cited Cited "see" Craton Liddell, a Minor, and Mary Puleo, Gerard Puleo, Emma Dannenberg, Robin Dannenberg, Louis Reineri and Mary Anjela Reineri, Representing the \Involved Citizens Committee\" United States of America v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis and Daniel L. Schlafly
unknown court · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bradley v. Milliken, 468 F.2d 902 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 844 , 93 S.Ct. 45 , 34 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972); Taylor v. Board of Educ., 288 F.2d 600 (2d Cir. 1961).
cited Cited "see" Liddell v. Board of Education
unknown court · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bradley v. Milliken, 468 F.2d 902 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 844 , 93 S.Ct. 45 , 34 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972); Taylor v. Board of Educ., 288 F.2d 600 (2d Cir. 1961).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ronald Newsom Hasan Sharif Eddie J. McMillan and Donald Wolverton v. Steve Norris, Commissioner Michael Dutton, Warden and David Hindman (2×)
6th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
The appellees have argued, in this appellate review, that orders to submit remedial plans are not, strictly speaking, injunctive relief, and that as a result this court is without jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1) to review this part of the district court’s order. 5 “This court has consistently rejected attempts to obtain review of orders requiring the submission of remedial plans.” Groseclose v. Dutton, 788 F.2d 356, 359 (6th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see also Bradley v. Milliken, 468 F.2d 902 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 844 , 93 S.Ct. 45 , 34 L.Ed.2d …
cited Cited "see, e.g." Van Orman v. American Insurance
unknown court · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Bradley v. Milliken, 468 F.2d 902 , 902-03 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 844 , 93 S.Ct. 45 , 34 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972); Taylor v. Board of Education, 288 F.2d 600 , 605 (2d Cir. 1961).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Francis Van Orman, on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of a Class of All Participants, Continuing Former Employees, Pensioners, Beneficiaries and Contingent Survivors, as Such Persons Are Defined in the Revised Retirement Plan of the American Insurance Company, American Automobile Insurance Company and Associated Indemnity Corporation (\Tarp\") v. The American Insurance Company
unknown court · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Bradley v. Milliken, 468 F.2d 902 , 902-03 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 844 , 93 S.Ct. 45 , 34 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972); Taylor v. Board of Education, 288 F.2d 600 , 605 (2d Cir. 1961).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Frederick L. v. Thomas
3rd Cir. · 1977 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Bradley v. Milliken, 468 F.2d 902 (6th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 844 , 93 S.Ct. 45 , 34 L.Ed.2d 83 (1974). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Frederick L. v. Thomas
3rd Cir. · 1977 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Bradley v. Milliken, 468 F.2d 902 (6th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 844 , 93 S.Ct. 45 , 34 L.Ed.2d 83 (1974) 38 Taylor v. Board of Education, 191 F.Supp. 181 (S.D.N.Y.1961) 39 See 288 F.2d at 601 n.1 40 Id. at 602.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ronald Bradley
v.
William G. Milliken, Ronald Bradley v. Board of Education, Etc.
72-1064.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Oct 10, 1972.
468 F.2d 902
Published

468 F.2d 902

Ronald BRADLEY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
William G. MILLIKEN et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Ronald BRADLEY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, etc., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 72-1064 to 72-1066.

United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 23, 1972.
Certiorari Denied Oct. 10, 1972.
See 93 S.Ct. 45.

George T. Roumell, Jr., Louis D. Beer, Riley & Roumell, Detroit, Mich., for defendants-appellants.

William E. Caldwell, Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas, Memphis, Tenn., Nathaniel R. Jones, New York City, E. Winther McCroom, Cincinnati, Ohio, Jack Greenberg, Norman J. Chachkin, New York City, J. Harold Flannery, Paul R. Dimond, Robert Pressman, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Theodore Sachs, Detroit, Mich., for intervenors Detroit Federation of Teachers.

Before CELEBREZZE, McCREE and KENT, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

These are appeals from an order entered on November 5, 1971, following a "pretrial conference" held on October 4, 1971. The order from which these appeals are taken requires the parties to submit proposed plans for desegregation of the Detroit schools within a stipulated period of time which time had not passed at the time the appeals were filed. The order in question is not a final order within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, neither is it an interlocutory order or decree which may be appealed to this Court under Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a).

2

No party to the action has sought a certificate from the District Court or from this Court for an interlocutory appeal under the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b). There being no final order from which an appeal may be taken, and the cross-appellants having agreed that their appeal may be dismissed with the original appeal,

3

It is ordered that the motions to dismiss the appeals be granted.