Johnson v. Combs’s Empirical Analysis
471 F.2d 84 · 1972
Citation profile
45 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2010 · most notably Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond (1974), Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis City Schools (1973)
45 federal appellate ·
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 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000A
Relies on Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. · Ohio v. Kentucky · Elkanich v. United States · Roach v. United States · Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp.
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Since most school cases involve relief of an injunctive nature which must prove its efficacy over a period of time, it is obvious that many significant and appealable decrees will occur in the course of litigation which should not qualify as final in the sense of determining the issues in controversy. The ultimate approach to finality must be an individual and pragmatic one. Such a matter should be committed to the determination of the trial court.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We decline to apply Section 718 retroactively to the expenses incurred during the years of litigation prior to its enactment. This interpretation of the neutral language of the statute is compelled both by the long-established presumption against retrospective application in the absence of a clear legislative intent and the clear decisions of this Circuit governing the award of attorneys’ fees in school cases. School desegregation litigation has produced precedents which have been somewhat less than clear and explicit. Even when plaintiff and defendant were in agreement about the end to be reached, the means and the timing which would accomplish the goal often remained in bitter dispute. There was a necessity that the demands of the aggrieved plaintiffs be harmonized with legitimate educational interests of the school authorities and the community as a whole in the smooth and uneventful transition to a unitary school system. Many school districts have been litigating in this field filled with fast changing precedents and guidelines for a number of years; to apply this statute retroactively would place a wholly unexpected and unwarranted burden on these districts who have done no more than litigate what they, in good faith, believed to be demands which exceeded the Constitution’s demand.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] judgment or order is final for the purposes of appealability when it ends the litigation on the merits and comprehends only execution of the court's decree.”
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.