Roslyn Slade et al., Appellants, v. Board of Education of Harford County, David G. Harry, President, Howard S. O'neill, G. Robert Pennington, Samuel W. Galbreath, Mrs. Robert (blanche S.) Fletcher, Charles W. Willis, Superintendent of the Schools of Harford County, Appellees, 252 F.2d 291 (4th Cir. 1958)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 252 F.2d 291 (4th Cir. 1958) Argued January 16, 1958
Decided February 12, 1958

Tucker R. Dearing, Baltimore, Md., and Jack Greenberg, New York City (Thurgood Marshall, New York City, Juanita J. Mitchell, Baltimore, Md., Robert B. Watts and Irma Robbins Feder, New York City, on brief), for appellants.

Wilson K. Barnes, Baltimore, Md. (Edward C. Wilson, Jr., Bel Air, Md., on brief), for appellees.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.


This is an appeal in a school segregation case involving the public schools of Harford County, Maryland. The school board of the county had adopted a plan for the gradual desegregation of elementary schools over a two year period and high schools over a period of five years. At the suggestion of the District Judge, Moore v. Board of Education of Harford County et al., 152 F. Supp. 114, the plan was amended to provide for the transfer of qualified students in high school grades pending the final elimination of segregation in those grades. As so amended the plan was approved by the judge and a decree was entered enforcing it and making special provision for the admission of two Negro children who had been parties to a prior action. The facts are fully set forth in the opinion of the District Judge, and we think that his discretion was properly exercised for reasons adequately stated in the opinion, to which nothing need be added. See Moore v. Board of Education of Harford County, D.C., 152 F. Supp. 114. See also Allen v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Va., 4 Cir., 249 F.2d 462, 465; Rippy v. Borders, 5 Cir., 250 F.2d 690; Aaron v. Cooper, 8 Cir., 243 F.2d 361.

Affirmed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.