Tinsley

Tinsley v. Palo Alto Unified School District

Good Law
154 Cal. Rptr. 591·1979 Cal. App. LEXIS 1634·91 Cal. App. 3d 871
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 13, 1979Civ. 43478California17,374 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

Petitioners, the parents of elementary school children in various elementary school districts within the territory embraced within the boundaries of Sequoia Union High School District and in Palo Alto Unified School District, seek a writ of mandate to compel the respondent elementary districts and others to submit to the court a reasonably feasible plan to eliminate or alleviate alleged racially segregated schools existing within those districts. They have appealed from a judgment entered following an order sustaining, without leave to amend, the demurrers to their second amended petition as amended by a third amendment. It appears from the pleadings that the alleged segregation of which complaint is made is interdistrict in nature, and allegedly can only be eliminated or alleviated by an interdistrict plan. The trial court ruled that the petition, as thrice amended, failed to state a cause of action because it fails to allege any intentionally segregative acts or omissions requiring interdistrict relief, and, alternatively, because it fails to allege any acts or omissions, whether intentionally segregative or not, which require interdistrict relief.

The issue as so…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.