United States v. Indianola Municipal Separate School District’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If in a school district there are still all-Negro schools or only a small frac tion of Negroes enrolled in white schools or no substantial integration of faculties and school activiteis then, as a matter of law, the existing plan fails to meet constitutional standards as established in Green.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education · United States v. Board of Education of Lincoln County

2. “* * * 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
   e.g. Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board

3. ““The principal answer to these speculations is that those who disagree with constitutional imperatives cannot avoid their application. Monroe v. Board of Commissioners of City of Jackson, Tenn., et al., supra, 391 U.S. 450 , 88 S.Ct. 1700 , 20 L.Ed.2d 733, note 3 , at 739. Our system of a government of laws surely could not survive if it were otherwise. Further, there is no competent evidence and can be none as to the vitality of this school district op erating under constitutional principles, since the district has not yet attempted full compliance with these principles. The attitudes of individuals and regions can be changed by persuasion and logic. We are not convinced that the white residents of Indianola or any city wherever located would choose the destruction of their school system over its compliance with constitutional mandates.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Augustus v. School Board