86 pages of key documents concerning the Brown V. Board of Education case. 10 Argued: December 9, 1952 Decided: May 17, 1954. Documents date from 1951 to 1957. Brown v. Board of Education (1954, 1955) The case that came to be known as Brown v. Board of Education was actually the name given to five separate cases that were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the issue of segregation in public schools. One of the most historical court cases, especially in terms of education, was Brown v.Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).This case took on segregation within school systems or the separation of white and black students within public schools. Linda Brown and her family believed that the segregated school system violated the 14th Amendment and took their case to court. appeal from the united states district court for the district Reargued on the question of relief April 11-14, 1955. Brown v. the Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Using legal documents to frame the debates surrounding the case, Waldo Martin presents Brown v.Board of Education as an event, a symbol, and a key marker in the black liberation struggle. v. Board of Education of Topeka Key Documents. Brown v Board of Education was one of many cases launched by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to contest Jim Crow laws - state laws which allowed for or mandated racial segregation or discrimination. This is a post for my school law class. Briefing a case is an essential skill for a paralegal. In the Kansas case, Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs are Negro children of elementary school age residing in Topeka. The current research paper examines the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas case as a major turning point for the education system in the U.S. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The lead plaintiff, Oliver Brown, had filed suit against the Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas in 1951, after his daughter Linda was denied admission to a white elementary school. On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Certain landmark decisions are essential to know and understand. Prior to the ruling, African-American children in Topeka, Kansas were denied access to all-white schools due to … United States Supreme Court. Facts: Black children had been denied admission to their community public schools which were only attended by white children under the State segregation laws in several places, including Topeka, Kansas where Brown resided. Brown et al. Brown v. the Board of Education is one of those cases. Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment - even … Sample Case Brief: Brown v. Board of Education Case Name and Citation: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 - Supreme Court 1954 - Google Scholar v. v. Board of Education, 1. It has appeared throughout my paralegal education and in practical use as a foundation for legal cases I have worked. BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION(1954) No. Opinion and judgments announced May 31, 1955* 349 U.S. 294. The 1954 case of Brown v.Board of Education ended with a Supreme Court decision that helped lead to the desegregation of schools throughout America. In more recent cases… Click on the cases below to learn more about each one. State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. Syllabus. On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. In Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U. S. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U. S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged.