Parham v. Dove’s Empirical Analysis
271 F.2d 132 · 1959
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1985 · most notably McNeese v. Board of Education for Community Unit School District 187 Cahokia (1963), Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County (1960)
25 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Brown v. Board of Education · Moog Industries, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Board of Education of Jefferson County Alabama · 162 F. Supp. 372 - Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Board of Education
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this field of constitutional paramountcy, a placement or assignment statute is entitled to be accorded recognition only as an implement or adjunctive element on the part of a state for effecting an orderly solution to its desegregation difficulties, in proper relationship to its other school-system problems, but with a subservience to the supreme-law declaration of the Brown cases as to all imposed segregation and the obligation owed to get rid thereof within the tolerance entitled to be allowed play under these decisions for accomplishing that result.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The statute makes of the Board the equivalent of an administrative tribunal, with the power and duty of engaging in adjudicatory function, including the consideration of the possibility of constitutional violation in relation to its result. No more than in the case of any other administrative agency, or of a court, does it seem to us that there can properly be recognized an anticipatory right to brand such a proceeding before the Board, in its official responsibility for administration of the statute, as being legally futile and so unnecessary. Even the important problem of school desegregation cannot soundly permit of such a departure from established legal concept and fundamental principle. “It is for this reason that we think there is controlling here, and that we adopt, what was said in Carson v. Board of Education, 4 Cir., 227 F.2d 789 , 790: ‘Where the state law provides adequate administrative procedure for the protection of such rights, the federal courts manifestly should not interfere with the operation of the schools until such administrative procedure has been exhausted and the intervention of the federal courts is shown to be necessary’. “In a subsequent case, Carson v. Warlick, 4 Cir., 288 F.2d 724 , certiorari denied 353 U.S. 910 , 77 S.Ct. 665 , 1 L.Ed.2d 664 , the court, in an opinion by the late Chief Judge John J. Parker, made reiteration of this judicial limitation, holding that the plaintiffs there were not entitled to seek judicial relief, ‘for the reas”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“as constituting a denial of any right of such minor guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.