Aaron v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
261 F.2d 97 · 1958
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2014 · most notably Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961), Shanley v. Northeast Independent School District (1972)
31 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2281
Relies on Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Brown v. Board of Education · Cooper v. Aaron · Smith v. Allwright · Terry v. Adams
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Acts of state officials, which otherwise constitute a violation of federal law, or which are on other federal grounds legally improper in their relation to a particular situation, may afford the basis for an injunction without regard to the validity of the state statute underlying them. A three-judge court is not required for the issuance of such an injunction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'a general, suitable, and efficient educational system.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The District Court, this Court, and the Supreme Court have all recognized the previous good faith of appellees. But what they have now done and threatened to do can hardly legally be viewed as a matter of neutrality in relation to the court decree against them. Complicating, impeding and assisting, to effect a frustration of the execution of the decree cannot be termed legal neutrality. Nor could a position of neutrality continuingly serve to satisfy appellees’ obligation under the decree. They are under mandate, as the agency through which the State has committed the constitutional violation existing in the Little Rock School District, to move forward to correct that violation, by carrying out the integration plan. Implicit in this mandate of moving forward to carry out the plan necessarily is a reasonable exercising by them of such legal powers as they possess, to try to achieve that integration.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Aaron v. Cooper
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.