20 U.S.C. § 1752
Appeals from Federal district court transfer or transportation orders affecting school attendance areas and achieving balancing of students; postponement of Federal court orders pending exercise of appellate remedy; expiration of section
Notwithstanding any other law or provision of law, in the case of any order on the part of any United States district court which requires the transfer or transportation of any student or students from any school attendance area prescribed by competent State or local authority for the purposes of achieving a balance among students with respect to race, sex, religion, or socioeconomic status, the effectiveness of such order shall be postponed until all appeals in connection with such order have been exhausted or, in the event no appeals are taken, until the time for such appeals has expired. This section shall expire at midnight on
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1975–1980 · leading case: Evans v. Buchanan, 416 F. Supp. 328 (D. Del. 1976).
Evans v. Buchanan, 416 F. Supp. 328 (D. Del. 1976). “See 20 U.S.C. § 1752 ; cf., id., § 1757. Those provisions are not controlling here, since this opinion deals with a remedy for de jure and not de facto segregation.”
Tallulah Morgan v. John J. Kerrigan, Boston Home & Sch. Ass'n, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant. Tallulah Morgan v. John J. Kerrigan, 523 F.2d 917 (1st Cir. 1975). “We consider first defendants’ argument based upon section 253 of the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1752 . The statute directs that the effectiveness of “any order .”
United States v. Sch. Dist. of the City of Ferndale, Michigan, 616 F.2d 895 (6th Cir. 1980). “21 Nor can an “open classroom” pro *913 gram be considered effective in ending segregation where a substantial number of black students remain in a traditional program separated from white students in the same building. 22 We also reject the District Court’s conclusion that…”
United States v. Price, 577 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1978). “22 We also reject the District Court’s conclusion that preliminary injunctive relief would necessarily be delayed by the requirements of 20 U.S.C. § 1752 . That provision does not affect court efforts to eradicate state-imposed segregation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.