Upon Unjoined Interested Persons, in Violation of the California Constitution, as Amended on November 6, 1979.

2. The Additional Affirmative Relief Sought on Appeal Against Unjoined Third Parties Should be Denied.

3. Appellants Seek to Subject Objecting Students to Discrimination on the Grounds of Race Under a Program Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, in Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

4. Appellants Seek State Action Discriminating Against Unjoined Interested Persons, Because of Their Race, in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

5. Appellants Seek State Action Infringing Upon the Liberty and Privacy of Unjoined Interested Children, in Violation of the United States Constitution.

6. Appellants Seek State Action Infringing Upon the Liberty of Unjoined Interested Parents, in Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

7. The Judicial Action Sought by Appellants Would Abrogate Powers Reserved to the People and Other California Governing Authorities, in Violation of the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution.

On Sept. 8, 1981, the Carlin Trial Court filed its Order re Integration Plan, 1981-82. The Carlin plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal, dated Oct. 28, 1981, from that order, which did not contain a mandatory reassignment segment as continuously requested by them.

The grounds offered by the Court for the omission of a busing segment, of course, were not on the basis of the objections to busing raised by intervenors in the trial on their complaint. An appellate court will sometimes decide a case on a broader grounds than those raised on appeal, as the Warren Court did in Gebhart v. Belton, on certiorari from the Supreme Court of Delaware. See Brown I, 347 U.S. at 487; fn.1. But it seemed wise to consider that a higher court might not overlook a failure to appeal on the broader points raised by the "Groundswell"