Court of Appeal Sustains
Trial Court's Order

So it was with a feeling of renewed energy that I inserted my hearing aid, gathered my cane and papers, and rode down with my son Bob to the courthouse to meet Jim Marinos. I was able to make the oral argument on January 10, 1998.

We each, the attorneys for Plaintiffs and Board opposing the trial Court's order and myself, supporting it, briefly argued. I concluded on this note:

Finally, it assures San Diego students they will enter school-houses this fall with the same panoply of civil rights as their counterparts in Los Angeles and elsewhere where courts have terminated jurisdiction over California public schools.

On February 9, 1998 the Fourth District Court of Appeal rendered its decision in Board of Education v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App.4th 411 (Feb.1998), denying the Petition for Writ of Mandate. With a sense of pride that the Court had paid attention to my closing contention, as I read this mention of it (id., at 417):

Groundswell objected to any further extension of jurisdiction, claiming “[f]or each day that the present ‘Final Order' remains in effect, non-class constituents... will be unable to exercise their civil rights under (Section 31 (Proposition 209)) and independently applicable civil rights laws in a manner similar to their counterparts elsewhere not under the constraints of a court order.”

Also, the Court opined that there was “no legal impediment for District to continue to receive (state integration) funds because both its plan and Los Angeles' plan qualify by originating under court orders.” It dismissed the District's assertion funding was in jeopardy once supervision was terminated as unpersuasive in view of the narrowness of the Superior Court order; and that the Board's predictions of what