Adams v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably United States v. City of Chicago (1977), Santiago v. City of Philadelphia (1977)
12 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D
Relies on Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · Green v. County School Board of New Kent County · Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County · Alexander v. Holmes County Board of 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No order suspending, terminating or refusing to grant or continue Federal financial assistance shall become effective until (1) the responsible Department official has advised the applicant or recipient of his failure to comply and has determined that compliance cannot be secured through voluntary means, (2) there has been an express finding on the record, after an opportunity for hearing, of a failure by the applicant or recipient to comply with a requirement imposed by or pursuant to this part, (3) the expiration of 30 days after the Secretary has filed with the committee of the House and the committee of the Senate having legislative jurisdiction over the program involved, a full written report of the circumstances and the grounds for such action. Any action to suspend or terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance shall be limited to the particular political entity, or part thereof, or other applicant or recipient as to whom such a finding has been made and shall be limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which such noncompliance has been so found.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. Califano“5. The underlying thrust of the statute requires that the agency involved, i. e., in this case HEW, attempt at the outset to secure compliance by voluntary means, if such method is reasonably possible. This course involves negotiation, and negotiation takes time. To such extent, the defendants have discretion but such discretion is not unlimited. 6. Where a substantial period of time has elapsed, during which period attempts toward voluntary compliance have been either not attempted or have been unsuccessful or have been rejected, defendants’ limited discretion is ended and they have the duty to effectuate the provisions of § 2000d by either administrative determination, after a hearing on the record, that there has been a failure to comply and that the funds should be terminated, or by any other means authorized by law, such as reference to the Department of Justice. Under such circumstances, defendants cannot rely on their . alleged complete discretion as justification for permitting the mandate of the statute to be unenforced. . . . ( 351 F.Supp. 636, 640-641 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“not properly fulfilled its obligation under Title VI * * * to eliminate the vestiges of past policies and practices of segregation in programs receiving federal financial assistance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Adams v. Bell
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.