1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Pa.Commw.
  4. 6 Pa.Commw.
  5. 6 Pa.Commw. 281 (1972)
 

PHILA. SCH. DIST. v. HUMAN REL. COMM.

Appeals, Nos. 524 C.D. 1971, 568 C.D. 1971, 744 C.D. 1971, 769 C.D. 1971 and 931 C.D. 1971.

6 Pa.Commw. 281 (1972)

Philadelphia School District v. Human Relations Commission. Pittsburgh School District v. Human Relations Commission. Uniontown Area School District v. Human Relations Commission. New Castle Area School District v. Human Relations Commission. New Kensington-Arnold School District v. Human Relations Commission.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued May 4, 1972.

August 17, 1972.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Gillian R. Gilhool, Assistant Counsel, with her Edward B. Soken, General Counsel, and Martin Horowitz, Assistant Counsel, for appellant, The School District of Philadelphia.

Justine M. Johnson, Solicitor, with him Bernard Markovitz, Assistant Solicitor, and Thomas J. Cox, Jr., Assistant Solicitor, for appellant, Board of Public Education of the School District of Pittsburgh.

Herbert Margolis, with him Ray, Buck, Margolis, Mahoney & John, for appellant, Uniontown Area School District.

Jonathan Solomon, with him Joseph Solomon and Solomon and Solomon, for appellant, New Castle Area School District.

Robert J. Key, with him Philip Corbin, Jr., for appellant, New Kensington-Arnold School District.

Stanton W. Kratzok, Assistant Attorney General, and Jay Harris Feldstein, Assistant General Counsel, with them Roy Yaffe, Assistant Attorney General, S. Asher Winikoff, General Counsel, and J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for appellee.

Argued May 4, 1972, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., KRAMER, WILKINSON, JR., MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT. President Judge BOWMAN did not participate.

OPINION BY JUDGE WILKINSON, August 17, 1972:

This Court has before it five cases in which the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission has ordered a school district to submit a plan to achieve racial balance in its public schools. In all instances, the school district has appealed, assigning one or more of the following reasons on which it requests this Court to reverse the order of the Commission:

1. There is no finding of a de jure segregation nor...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases