Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 349 F.2d 795 - United States v. Ward

United States v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis

349 F.2d 795 · 1965

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
February 2016
most recently cited

29 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education (1966), United States v. McLeod (1967)

29 federal appellate ·

210196519701980199020002010decided

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

Applies 2 U.S.C. § 1971 · 42 U.S.C. § 1971 (Civil Rights Act of 1957)

Relies on Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Cannon v. United States · Louisiana v. United States · Boesche v. Udall · United States v. Mississippi

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

  1. “[G]ood administration suggests that the proposed decree be indicated by an Appendix, not because of any apprehension that the conscientious District Judge would not faithfully impose every condition so obviously implied, but rather because of factors bearing upon administration itself. It is not possible, or even desirable, of course to achieve absolute uniformity. But in this ever growing class of cases which have their genesis in unconstitutional lack of uniformity as between races, courts within this single circuit should achieve a relative uniformity without further delay. We have come to this in school discrimination cases. * * * Voter registrars should come to learn that when the cases are tried on the application for permanent injunction and the facts establish a pattern or practice, the District Court must so find. Next, the Judge must make the finding to set in operation the § 1971(e) machinery. Next, he must enter a decree which, through suitable freeze provisions, effective for an adequate period of time, will assure that the evils of past discrimination be radi-cated before new and more stringent state provisions may be exacted of Negro applicants.”
    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.