Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 299 FSUPP 1360 - Zachry v. Brown

Zachry v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
4
states following
October 1991
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently October 1991 · most notably Richards v. Thurston (1970), Breen v. Kahl (1969)

18 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

4001967197019801990decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education · 243 Cal. App. 2d 625 - Forstner v. City & County of San Francisco · 261 F. Supp. 545 - Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District

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. ““The wide latitude permitted legislatures of the states and therefore the administrators of public colleges to classify students with respect to dress, appearance and behavior must be respected and preserved by the courts. However, the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment prohibits classification upon an unreasonable basis. This court is of the firm opinion that the classification of male students attending Jefferson State Junior College by their hair style is unreasonable and fails to pass constitutional muster. “It needs to be emphasized that the defendants have not sought to justify such classification for moral and social reasons. The only reason stated upon the hearing of this case was their understandable personal dislike of long hair on men students. The requirement that these plaintiffs cut their hair to conform to normal and conventional styles is just as unreasonable as would palpably be a requirement that all male students of the college wear their hair down over their ears and collars.” 299 F.Supp. at 1362 .”
    2 later decisions 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.