Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 339 U.S. 637 - McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education’s Empirical Analysis

339 U.S. 637 · 1950

Citation profile

388
cited by 388 later decisions
55
cited 55 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

138 federal appellate · 29 district · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 388 later decisions (55 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. (1954), San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)

138 federal appellate · 29 district · 39 state decisions

148019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Shelley v. Kraemer · Sweatt v. Painter · State of Missouri Gaines v. Canada · Sipuel v. Board of Regents

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 388 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Our society grows increasingly complex, and our need for trained leaders increases correspondingly. Appellant’s ease represents, perhaps, the epitome of that need, for he is attempting to obtain an advanced degree in education, to become, by definition, a leader and trainer of others. Those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly affected by the education he receives. Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. State-imposed restrictions which produce such inequalities cannot be sustained.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It may be argued that appellant will be in no better position when these restrictions are removed, for he may still be set apart by his fellow students. This we think irrelevant. There is a vast difference-a Constitutional difference-between restrictions imposed by the state which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students, and the refusal of individuals to commingle where the state presents no such bar”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “must receive the same treatment at the hands of the state as students of other races.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.