Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 444 F.2d 99 - Adams v. School District Number 5, Orangeburg County

Adams v. School District Number 5, Orangeburg County’s Empirical Analysis

444 F.2d 99 · 1971

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 2011
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2011 · most notably WINSTON-SALEM/FORSYTH COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. SCOTT Et Al. (1971), Brewer v. The School Board Of The City Of Norfolk, Virginia (1972)

17 federal appellate · 2 district ·

23019711980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education · Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs of Mobile Cty. · Nesbit v. Statesville City 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he school authorities and the district court should consider the use of all techniques for desegregation, including pairing or grouping of schools, noncontiguous attendance zones, restructuring of grade levels, and the transportation of pupils.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “to receive from the respective school boards new plans (of desegregation) which will (would) give effect to Swann and Davis”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Wherever schools are 'all or predominately of one race in a district of mixed population [there will be required] close scrutiny to determine that school assignments are not part of state-enforced segregation.' Swann, supra, at 25 [of 402 U.S., 91 S.Ct. 1267] . . . . Although the existence of 'some small number of one-race, or virtually one-race, schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system which still practices segregation by law,' Swann, supra, at 26, 91 S.Ct. at 1281 . . ., both the school authority and the district judge must nevertheless be concerned with the elimination of one-race schools.”
    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.