Aaron v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
257 F.2d 33 · 1958
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2013 · most notably Cooper v. Aaron (1958), Maxwell v. Stephens (1965)
36 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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. · Brown v. Board of Education · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. United States · United States v. Ohio Power 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“most carefully and conscientiously considered the problem presented,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania · Robert P. Casey Allan S. Noonan Ernest D. Preate, Jr. v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania Reproductive Health and Counseling Center Women's Health Services, Inc. Women's Suburban Clinic Allentown Women's Center and Thomas Allen, M.D., and the Honorable Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd, Judge, United States District Court, Nominal Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania Reproductive Health and Counseling Center Women's Health Services, Inc. Women's Suburban Clinic Allentown Women's Center Thomas Allen, M.D., on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Robert P. Casey N. Mark Richards Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Personally and in Their Official Capacities Michael D. Marino, Personally and in His Official Capacity, Together With All Others Similarly Situated Robert P. Casey, N. Mark Richards and Ernest D. Preate, Jr.“* * * [T]he time has not yet come in these United States when an order of a Federal Court must be whittled away, watered down, or shamefully withdrawn in the face of violent and unlawful acts of individual citizens in opposition thereto.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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
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.