McDaniel v. Barresi’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

118 federal appellate · 12 district · 15 state decisions

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

1. ““The Clark County Board of Education, as part of its affirmative duty to disestablish the dual school system, properly took into account the race of its elementary school children in drawing attendance lines. To have done otherwise would have severely hampered the board’s ability to deal effectively with the task at hand. School boards that operated dual school systems are ‘clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch.’ Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 437-438 [ 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1693-1694 , 20 L.Ed.2d 716 ] (1968). In this remedial process, steps will almost invariably require that students be assigned ‘differently because of their race.’ See Swann v. CharlotteMecklenburg Board of Education, [no. 281,] [402 U.S.] p. 1 [91 S. Ct. p. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 ]; Youngblood v. Board of Public Instruction, 430 F.2d 625, 630 (CA5 1970). Any other approach would freeze the status quo that is the very target of all desegregation processes. Nor is the board’s plan barred by Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The sections relied upon by respondents (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c(b), 2000c-6) are directed only at federal officials and are designed simply to foreclose any interpretation of the Act as expanding the powers of federal officials to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. Swann, supra, [402 U.S.] at 17 [91 S.Ct., at 1276.] Title IV clearly doe”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick · City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co.

2. ““Nor is the board’s plan barred by Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The sections relied upon by the respondents [42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c(b), 2000e(6)] are directed only at federal officials and are designed simply to foreclose any interpretation of the Act as expanding the powers of federal officials to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. Swann, 402 U.S. at 15, [91 S.Ct. at 1276,] 28 L.Ed.2d at 567. Title IV clearly does not restrict state school authorities in the exercise of their discretionary powers to assign students within their school systems.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Darville v. Dade County School Board · The State of Georgia v. The Honorable John N. Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States

3. “nothing herein shall empower any official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise enlarge the existing power of the court to insure compliance with constitutional standards.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Darville v. Dade County School Board · The State of Georgia v. The Honorable John N. Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States