Aaron v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “’,, “Appellants cite to us several cases where Federal Courts have used their injunctive powers to speed up or effectuate integration. Willis v. Walker, D.C.W.D.Ky.1955, 136 F.Supp. 177 ; Thompson v. County School Board of Arlington County, D.C.E.D.Va.1956, 144 F.Supp. 239 ; Clemons v. Board of Education, 6 Cir., 1956, 228 F.2d 853 , certiorari denied 1956, 350 U.S. 1006 , 76 S.Ct. 651 , 100 L.Ed. 868 ; Booker v. State of Tennessee Board of Education, 6 Cir., 1957, 240 F.2d 689 . These decisions serve only to demonstrate that local school problems are ‘varied’ as referred to by the Supreme Court. A reasonable amount of time to effect complete integration in the schools of Little Rock, Arkansas, may be unreasonable in St. Louis, Missouri, or Washington, D. C. The schools of Little Rock have been on a completely segregated basis since their creation in 1870. That fact, plus local problems as to facilities, teacher personnel, the creation of teachable groups, the establishment of the proper curriculum in desegregated schools and at the same time the maintenance of standards of quality in an educational program may make the situation at Little Rock, Arkansas, a problem that is entirely different from that in many other places. It was on the basis of such ‘varied’ school problems that the Supreme Court in the second Brown decision remanded the cases there involved to the local District Courts to determine whether the school authorities, who possessed the primary responsibility, ha”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aaron v. Cooper · 186 F. Supp. 913 - Aaron v. Tucker

2. “It may well be, in the light of future events, that the proposed program of integration extends over too long a period and that complete integration of all grades could be effected in a shorter space of time than now anticipated by the board. In that regard, it will be noted that the District Court in its order provided for retention of jurisdiction as directed by the Supreme Court in the second Brown decision. It may be that in the future as the plan of integration begins to operate, a showing could then be made to the effect that more time was being taken than was necessary. Upon such a finding, the District Court would have the power to see that the plan of gradual integration was accelerated at a greater rate than now proposed. That remains for future determination. 67 "Jurisdiction of this case shall be retained by the District Court to insure full opportunity for further showing in the event compliance at the `earliest practicable date' ceases to be the objective.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kelley v. Board of Education

3. ““This court is of the opinion that it should not substitute its own judgment for that of the defendants. The plan which has been adopted after thorough and conscientious consideration of the many questions involved is a plan that will lead to an effective and gradual adjustment of the problem, and ultimately bring about a school system not based on color distinctions. “It would be an abuse of discretion for this court to fail to approve the plan or to interfere with its consummation so long as the defendants move in good faith, as they have done since immediately after the decision of May 17, 1954, to inaugurate and make effective a racially nondiscriminatory school system.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aaron v. Cooper