Aaron v. Cooper (1957)

We noted and relied on such retention in Kemp v. Beasley, p. 22 of 352 F.2d, and we directed it, after district court dismissals, in Clark, supra, pp. 667 , 670 and 671 of 369 F.2d, and in Altheimer, supra, p. 489 of 378 F.2d See, also, Brown v. Board of Educ., supra, p. 301 of 349 U.S., 75 S.Ct. p. 756; Robinson v. Willisville School District, 379 F.2d 289 (8 Cir. 1967); Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798, 809 (8 Cir. 1961); Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F.2d 361, 364 (8 Cir. 1957). 31…

“Jurisdiction of this case shall be retained by the District Court to insure full opportunity for further showing in the event compliance at the ‘earliest practicable date’ ceases to be the objective.” Aaron v. Cooper, 8 Cir., 243 F.2d 361, 363, 364 . *228 The findings of the district court were sustained by the evidence.

That fact, plus local problems as to facilities, teacher personnel, the creation of teachable groups, the establishment of the proper curriculum in desegregated schools and at the same time the maintenance of standards of quality in an educational program may make the situation at Little Rock, Arkansas, a problem that is entirely different from that in many other places.” Aaron v. Cooper, supra, 243 F.2d at page 364.

See Aaron v. Cooper, D.C.E.D.Ark.1956, 143 F.Supp. 855 , affirmed 8 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 361 ; Thomason v. Cooper, 8 Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 808 ; Faubus v. United States, 8 Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 797 .

See Aaron v. Cooper D.C.E.D.Ark.1956, 143 F.Supp. 855 , affirmed 8 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 361 ; Thomason v. Cooper, 8 Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 808 ; Faubus v. United States, 8 Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 797 . 2 In conformity with the plan, and under the direction of the Superintendent of Schools of the Little Rock School District (hereinafter called 'District'), approximately sixty Negro students were meticulously screened prior to the opening of schools in September, 1957.

See order in the Arlington case, approved by this court, 240 F.2d at page 61 , also Aaron v. Cooper, 8 Cir., 243 F.2d 361 . 7 The fact that the schools might be closed if the order were enforced is no reason for not enforcing it.

See order in the Arlington case, approved by this court, 240 F.2d at page 61 , also Aaron v. Cooper, 8 Cir., 243 F.2d 361 .

See Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir.1957).

See Aaron v. Cooper, D.C., 143 F.Supp. 855 for the plan in its entirety, affirmed 8 Cir., 243 F.2d 361 .” The court clearly recognized that “screening” or pupil assignment procedures were contemplated under the plan.