Price v. Denison Independent School District Board of Education’s Empirical Analysis
348 F.2d 1010 · 1965
Citation profile
35 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000C · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D
Relies on Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County · Watson v. City of Memphis · Goss v. Board of Education of City of Knoxville Tennessee · Karen Renee Augustus, a Minor, by Charles A. Augustus, Her Father, and Next Friend v. The Board of Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida · Fred S. Calhoun v. A. C. Latimer
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We attach great weight to the standards established by the Office of Education. The judiciary has of course functions and duties distinct from those of the executive department, but in carrying out a national policy the three departments of government are united by a common objective. There should be a close correlation, therefore, between the judiciary’s standards in enforcing the national policy requiring desegregation of public schools and the executive department’s standards in administering this policy. Absent legal questions, the United States Office of Education is better qualified than the courts and is the more appropriate federal body to weigh administrative difficulties inherent in school desegregation plans. If in some district courts judicial guides for approval of a school desegregation plan are more acceptable to the community or substantially less burdensome than H.E.W. guides, school boards may turn to the federal courts as a means of circumventing the H.E.W. requirements for financial aid. Instead of a uniform policy relatively easy to administer, both the courts and the Office of Education would have to struggle with individual school systems on ad hoc basis. If judicial standards are lower than H.E.W. standards, recalcitrant school boards in effect will receive a premium for recalcitrance; the more the intransigence, the bigger the bonus. * * * “If Selma, Alabama, can commence with desegregation of four grades for 1965-1966, Jackson, Mississippi, can at l”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * [I] t is now clear that even though the 1960 order prescribes a plan in specific detail, this is not the end of the matter. The District Court of necessity retains continuing jurisdiction over the cause. That means that it must malee such adaptations from time to time as the existing developing situation reasonably requires to give final and effectual voice to the constitutional rights of Negro children. (Emphasis added.)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“By the 1964 Act and the action of HEW, administration (of school desegregation plans) is largely where it ought to bein the hands of the Executive and its agencies with the function of the Judiciary confined to those rare cases presenting justiciable, not operational, questions.”
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.