# Joyce Marie Clemons, an Infant by Gertrude Clemons, Her Mother and Next Friend v. The Board of Education of Hillsboro, Ohio, a Body Corporate > Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 5, 1956 · 228 F.2d 853 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444870 ## Case - **Full name:** Joyce Marie CLEMONS, an Infant by Gertrude Clemons, Her Mother and Next Friend, Et Al., Appellants, v. the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HILLSBORO, OHIO, a Body Corporate, Et Al., Appellees - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - **Decided:** January 5, 1956 - **Citations:** 228 F.2d 853; 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 23; 59 Ohio Op. 229; 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3521 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Miller - **Judges:** Allen, Miller, Stewart - **Cited by:** 97 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444870 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - reaffirming the traditional principle that “[ejquity will not interfere to restrain the breach of a contract ... when the legal remedy of compensatory damages would be complete and adequate” ## Opinion text MILLER, Circuit Judge (dissenting). The granting or denial of the injunction prayed for was a matter within the judicial discretion of the District Judge. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294, 300-301 , 75 S.Ct. 753, 756 . In such cases it is well settled that upon appeal the ruling will not be disturbed unless contrary to some rule of equity or the result of improvident exercise of judicial discretion. Meccano, Ltd. v. John Wanamaker, 253 U.S. 136, 141 , 40 S.Ct. 463 , 64 L.Ed. 822 ; National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Thompson, 281 U.S. 331, 338 , 50 S.Ct. 288 , 74 L.Ed. 881 . The discretion of the chancellor is necessarily broad and a strong showing of abuse must be made to reverse it. United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 , 73 S.Ct. 894 , 97 L.Ed. 1303 . Discretion, in this sense, is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary, not justifiable in view of the situation and circumstances. Hartford-Empire Co. v. Obear-Nester Glass Co., 8 Cir., 95 F.2d 414, 417 ; Delno v. Market St. Ry. Co., 9 Cir., 124 F.2d 965, 967 . If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the District Judge, it can not be said that the District Judge abused his discretion. Delno v. Market St. Ry. Co., supra; McHenry v. Foutty, 223 Ind. 335 , 60 N.E.2d 781 , 158 A.L.R. 537 . Irrespective of whether we agree or disagree with the ruling of the District Judge, I do not believe his ruling can be considered arbitrary or one concerning which reasonable men might not differ. Problems related to administration, which the Supreme Courts specifically pointed to in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, supra, 349 U.S. at pages 300-301, 75 S.Ct. at page 756 , as problems which the Court might consider in reaching its decision, are present in this case, such as those arising from the physical condition of the school plant and the school transportation system. The District Judge was also authorized by the same opinion to consider the adequacy of any plans which the Board might have to meet these problems and to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system. The Board has adopted a plan which will effectuate the transition as soon as construction work now in progress is completed. The plan- has been approved by the residents of the community who have voted the necessary bonds to finance it. It should also be noted that this case, does not have a background of opposition on the part of the Board to integration of the public school system in Hillsboro. The Hillsboro High School has been integrated for some years. Segregation of pupils in grades 7-8 was discontinued in 1951. At that time the Board discussed the question of integration of the complete school system in contemplation of the passage of bond issues. Three proposed bond issues failed to pass, but in 1953 the necessary bond issue was approved. On August 9th, 1954, before this action was filed, the Board unanimously passed a resolution approving a plan calling for integration of all school children in Hillsboro effective upon the completion of the new elementary buildings. The plan included the rehabilitation of the Washington building with the interior torn down and rebuilt, the work to start in June 1955. The Board de- *861 elded that integration should be delayed until this work was completed. The Supreme Court stated in its opinion in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, supra [ 349 U.S. 294 , 75 S.Ct. 756 ], that the District Courts should require that local school authorities “make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling. Once such a start has been made, the courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner.” (Emphasis added.) The additional directive that there must be a “good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date” does not require an immediate transition, regardless of the practical problems involved. The language itself recognizes the probable existence of practical problems, the solution of which, as pointed out by the Court, is the primary responsibility of the school authorities. I am of the opinion that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the District Judge in refusing to grant the injunction prayed for. I believe that the action should be retained on the docket of the District Court for further consideration by the Court if and when future developments warrant such additional consideration. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444870. Public record. Not legal advice.