Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Griffin v. County School Board

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
363 F.2d 206 (1966)


Facts

Prince Edward County, Virginia, (the County) was ordered to desegregate its schools by the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). The School Board of the County (defendant) responded by closing the public schools and paying tuition grants to parents of children attending private schools organized for white children. In 1961, the School Board was ordered by the trial court to quit paying tuition grants until the public schools were reopened. On June 25, 1964, the trial court ordered that the public schools be reopened. The County and the School Board appropriated funds to reopen the public schools for the following Fall semester. The County then moved to pay the private school tuition for the previous school year because the public schools were now reopened. The trial court enjoined the County from paying private tuition for the 1963-64 school year, but did not enjoin private tuition payments for any following school year. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on July 17, and moved to accelerate the appeal on July 28. The Court of Appeals requested that the County stipulate that it would not pay any tuition grants pending the appeal. The County responded late in the evening on August 4 that it would not make the requested stipulation. That same evening, the County Board of Supervisors met and enlarged the tuition grants. White parents were notified and picked up checks totaling approximately $180,000 before 9 a.m. the next day.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Bryan, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Haynesworth, C.J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.