Evans v. Buchanan’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1995 · most notably Evans v. Buchanan (1977), Jenkins v. State of Missouri (1987)
13 federal appellate · 14 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 20 U.S.C. § 1701 (§ 202 of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) · 20 U.S.C. § 1702 (§ 203 of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) · 20 U.S.C. § 1703 · 20 U.S.C. § 1713 · 20 U.S.C. § 1715 · 20 U.S.C. § 1752 · 20 U.S.C. § 880B · 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · William Marbury v. James Madison · Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the State has contributed to the separation of races by redrawing school lines, necessarily the districts on both sides of the lines are part of the violation itself, and exclusion of the suburban districts cannot be predicated on their own purported innocence when their present lines were drawn or redrawn in the course of a violation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for so long as the State takes no action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[t]he operation of public schools is traditionally a matter of local concern, and properly so. This court has intervened only reluctantly in that process, and only for limited purposes. We were urged throughout the hearings in this ease to be concerned with the “quality of education” offered by the area schools. That is much more properly the concern of local officials and the parents of children in the schools. Our duty here is not to impose quality education even if we could define that term, though we must be conscious that the implementation of the remedy does not defeat the ability of local agencies to fulfill their duty to offer it. We do not find in [.Brown I and II ] a mandate for District Courts to concern themselves with how well the educative function is performed. The decision in Brown was rather that the operation of a dual school system, based on race, is an impermissible classification under the Fourteenth Amendment. There has been much discussion, and there undoubtedly will continue to be much writing upon the topic of whether black children learn better in desegregated classrooms. Our holding does not rest upon these considerations, not least because judges are unqualified and inexpert in answering such questions. Rather, we have found a constitutional violation in the racially suspect treatment of Wilmington during a school district reorganization,[ 12 ] and other actions in the past by the State and local authorities. We believe that those violations, upon ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.