Cooper v. Aaron’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
763 federal appellate · 152 district · 280 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,109 later decisions (156 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. (1970), Allen v. Wright (1984)
763 federal appellate · 152 district · 280 state decisions — followed in 35 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedAaron v. Cooper (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Bolling v. Sharpe · William Marbury v. James Madison · Shelley v. Kraemer
Cited together with Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Brown v. Board of Education · Green v. County School Board of New Kent County · Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County
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 2,109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
87 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * Of course, in many locations obedience to the duty of desegregation would require immediate general admission of Negro children, otherwise qualified as students for their appropriate classes, at particular schools. On the other hand, a District Court, after analysis of the relevant factors (which, of course, excludes hostility to racial desegregation), might conclude that justification existed for not requiring the present nonsegregated admission of all qualified Negro children. In such circumstances, however, the courts should scrutinize the program of the school authorities to make sure that they had developed arrangements pointed toward the earliest practicable completion of desegregation, and had taken appropriate steps to put their program into effective operation. It was made plain that delay of any guise in order to deny the constitutional rights of Negro children could not be countenanced, and that only a prompt start, diligently and earnestly pursued, to eliminate racial segregation from the public schools could constitute good faith compliance.” (Emphasis added)”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * such time [delay] is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. To that end, the courts may consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, * * *.”
12 later decisions 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.