Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 163 F. Supp. 13 - Aaron v. Cooper

163 F. Supp. 13 - Aaron v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 1994
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1994 · most notably Cooper v. Aaron (1958), Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey No. A-655 (1994)

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

11019581960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Bolling v. Sharpe · Brown v. Board of Education · Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer · United States v. Swift & Co.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Appalling as the evidence is-the fires, destruction of private and public property, physical abuse, bomb threats, intimidation of school officials, open defiance of the police department of the City of Little Rock by mobs-and the naturally resulting additional expense to the District, disruption of normal educational procedures, and tension, even nervous collapse of the school personnel, we cannot accept the legal conclusions drawn by the District Court from these circumstances. Over and over again, in the testimony, we find the conclusion that the foregoing turmoil, chaos and bedlam directly resulted from the presence of the nine Negro students in Central High School, and from this conclusion, it appears that the District Court found a legal justification for removing temporarily the disturbing influence, i. e., the Negro students. It is more accurate to state that the fires, destruction of property, bomb threats, and other acts of violence, were the direct result of popular opposition to the presence of the nine Negro students. * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “* * * In reaching this conclusion we are not unmindful of the admonition of the Supreme Court that the vitality of those principles `cannot be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them'; here, however, as pointed out by the Board in its final brief, the opposition to integration in Little Rock is more than a mere mental attitude; it has manifested itself in overt acts which have actually damaged educational standards and which will continue to do so if relief is not granted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It being in the public interest, including the interest of both white and Negro students at Little Rock, that we have a peaceful interlude for the period mentioned, an order is being entered permitting the Board to suspend the operation of its said plan until mid-semester of the 1960-61 school year, without the Board, or the individual members thereof, or the Superintendent of Schools being considered in contempt of this Court.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.