Potts v. Flax’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 federal appellate · 7 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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is at least considerable doubt that relief confined to individual specified Negro children either could be granted or, if granted, could be so limited in its operative effect. By the very nature of the controversy, the attack is on the unconstitutional practice of racial discrimination. Once that is found to exist, the Court must order that it be discontinued. Such a decree, of course, might name the successful plaintiff as the party not to be discriminated against. But that decree may not — either expressly or impliedly — affirmatively authorize continued discrimination by reason of race against others. Cf. Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948, 334 U.S. 1 , 68 S.Ct. 836 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 . Moreover, to require a school system to admit the specific successful plaintiff Negro child while others, having no such, protection, were required to attend schools in a racially segregated system, would be for the court to contribute actively to the class discrimination proscribed by Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 5 Cir., 1962, 308 F.2d 491, 499 , on rehearing 308 F.2d 503 ; see also Ross v. Dyer, 5 Cir., 1962, 312 F.2d 191 . The effect of this last consideration is to afford additional basis for affirmance. In this light, if it was an error to treat the case as a class suit and enter such a decree, such error, if any, was harmless since the decree for all practical purposes would have been the same had it been confined to the Teal or Flax children.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oburn v. Shapp · Uzzell v. Friday

2. ““Properly construed the purpose of the suit was not to achieve specific assignment of specific children to any specific grade or school. The peculiar rights of specific individuals were not in controversy. It was directed at the system-wide policy of racial segregation. It sought obliteration of that policy of system-wide racial discrimination. * * *”’ 70”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.