Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School District’s Empirical Analysis
409 F.2d 682 · 1969
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably United States v. Hinds County School Board (1969), United States v. Texas Education Agency (1972)
63 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 1292
Relies on 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 · Strauder v. West Virginia · Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * The burden on a school board today is to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now. The obligation of the district courts, as it always has been, is to assess the effectiveness of a proposed plan in achieving desegregation. There is no universal answer to complex problems of desegregation; there is obviously no one plan that will do the job in every case. The matter must be assessed in light of the circumstances present and the options available in each instance. It is incumbent upon the school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness. Where the court finds the board to be acting in good faith and the proposed plan to have real prospects for dismantling the state-imposed dual system “at the earliest practicable date,” then the plan may be said to provide effective relief. Of course, the availability to the board of other more promising courses of action may indicate a lack of good faith; and at the least it places a heavy burden upon the board to explain its preference for an apparently less effective method. Moreover, whatever plan is adopted will require evaluation in practice, and the court should retain jurisdiction until i”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Green emphasizes that school officials have a continuing duty to take whatever action may be necessary to provide ‘prompt and effective disestablishment of a dual system.’ If one method is ineffective, they are to try another. Hence, no single plan is or can be judicially approved as a catho-licon. “Brown I and all of its successors, as well as Green, Monroe, and Raney, contemplate that school plans will be prepared by local officials and school boards, not by courts. But if local officials fail to assume their responsibilities under the Constitution, district courts must continue to attempt to for-muíate the plans that should be prepared by school officials based on their expert knowledge, training and skill.” (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Upon the entry of a final order by a court of the United States against a local educational agency, a state (or any agency thereof), or the United States (or any agency thereof), for failure to comply with any provision of this chapter or for discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as they pertain to elementary and secondary education, the Court, in its discretion, upon a finding that the proceedings were necessary to bring about compliance, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the cost.”
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.