Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 372 FSUPP 1279 - Lopez v. Williams

Lopez v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
January 1987
most recently cited

1 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Morrissey v. Brewer · Younger v. Harris · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Goldberg v. Kelly

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

  1. ““The decisions which have dealt with the subject in the composite provide that at a minimum procedural fairness requires: “1. Immediate removal of a student whose conduct disrupts the academic atmosphere of the school, endangers fellow students, teachers or school officials, or damages property. “2. Immediate written notice to’ the student and parents of the reason(s) for the removal from school and the proposed suspension should be given within 24'hours. .. “3. Not later than 72 hours after the actual removal of the student from school, the student and his parents must be given an opportunity to be present at a hearing before a school administrator who will determine if a suspension should be imposed. . . . “Such hearing, which is not a judicial proceeding, must provide at a minimum “(a) Statements in support of the charge(s) against the student upon which the hearing is conducted. ‘ ‘ (b) Statements by the student and others in defense of the charge(s) and/or in mitigations or explanation of his conduct. “(c) The administrator is not required to permit the presence of counsel or follow any prescribed judicial rules in conducting the hearing. “(d) The administrator should, within 24 hours .advise the student and his parents by letter of his decision and the reasons therefor.” Lopez v. William, 372 F. Supp. 1279, at 1302 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. ““§ 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights including the right to vote.””
    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.