Geier v. Dunn’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2004
11 federal appellate ·
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. · Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · Sweatt v. Painter · State of Missouri Gaines v. Canada · McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he phenomenon of a black Tennessee State, so long as it exists, negates both the contention that defendants have dismantled the dual system of public higher education in Tennessee, . . . and the contention that they are, in any realistic sense, on their way toward doing so.” Geier v. Dunn, supra, at 576.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Thus, regarding the disestablishment of a dual system of higher education, a court cannot — at least in the usual situation— order the transfer of faculty from one institution to another, order the transfer of students from one institution to another, or actually set the curricula at various such institutions. Over and above the question of such a court’s actual power to do so, such relief would not be administratively feasible, because there would be no way to ensure that it actually worked: no court can “order” a student to confine himself to one college or university instead of another, for, unlike the situation in a system of elementary or secondary education, such persons are free to leave and go elsewhere as they wish. The lesson is that, when it comes to the disestablishment of a dual system of higher education, a federal court cannot do what it might do in the realm of lower and secondary education: what works in one system will not work in another. Yet this is so as a practical matter, and not as a result either of there being less of a duty owed by a state to dismantle a dual system of higher education or of a lack of power — at least in a jurisdictional sense— on the part of a federal court to remedy such a situation. The limiting factor, from the court’s point of view, is “What will work?””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“open door policy, coupled with good faith recruiting efforts, ... is sufficient as a basic requirement”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Geier v. Alexander
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.