Thaxton v. Vaughan’s Empirical Analysis
321 F.2d 474 · 1963
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 1995 · most notably Smith v. Board of Education (1966), Lober v. Moore (1969)
17 federal appellate · 3 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 Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · Land US v. Dollar · Cooper v. Aaron · Samuel Bailey v. Joe T. Patterson · Webster v. Fall
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Prosecuting Attorney of Wayne County, Michigan, his Assistants, and those under his control, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them who have actual notice of the order of the court dated June 6, 1963, are subject to the provisions of said order, but only with respect to proceeding by authority of City Ordinance No. 603 of the City of Highland Park, Michigan, with the institution of any suit, criminal or civil, arrest or seizure of merchandise, pursuant to said ordinance. This order shall not be construed to restrain the Prosecuting Attorney of Wayne County or his Assistants from proceeding under any statute of the State of Michigan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Thus, the plaintiffs do not include any member of the class of persons against whom de facto discrimination is alleged to be practiced in the home. The absence of any direct evidence in the record of the attitude of the home inmates is indicative of the inadequacy of the plaintiffs to represent this relatively narrow category within the broad racial group to which they belong. The spurious class action permissible under Rule 23(a) (3) is a procedural device to avoid multiplicity of suits, but care must be taken that the plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent the group for which they purport to speak. 321 F.2d at 476”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gilmore v. James“ought not grant relief against a public official unless its order will be effective,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Robertson v. Jackson
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.