Barrera v. Wheeler’s Empirical Analysis
475 F.2d 1338 · 1973
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2009
7 federal appellate · 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 241A · 20 U.S.C. § 241C · 20 U.S.C. § 241E · 20 U.S.C. § 241J · 20 U.S.C. § 242 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Lemon v. Kurtzman · Rosado v. Wyman · Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham · American Communications Ass'n v. Douds · Davis v. Alaska
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Title I is the first federal-aid-to-education program authorizing assistance for private school children as well as for public school children. . Since the Act was designed to be administered by local public education officials, a number of problems naturally arise in the delivery of services to eligible private school pupils. . . . [T]he primary responsibility for designing and effectuating a Title I program rests with what the Act describe[s] as the “local educational agency.” This local agency submits to the “State educational agency” a proposed program designed to meet the special educational needs of educationally deprived children . In order to receive state approval, the proposed plan . . . must be designed to provide the eligible private school students services that are “comparable in quality, scope, and opportunity for participation to those provided for public school children with needs of equally high priority.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barrera v. Wheeler“It is not a comparable program where . the only service provided to the private school child is the furnishing of equipment. It is not a comparable program to provide only after-hour and summer remedial instruction on neutral sites ... to the needy private school child while offering the same services during regular school hours for deprived public school pupils, especially when the partial expense for transportation must be borne by the private school child who comes from a low-income family. [Educational authorities believe such programs do not provide equivalent benefits nor do they successfully reach a significant number of the eligible students. Once the need of all qualified students is determined, the state or local educational agency must then show some reasonable justification, . for denying comparable services to eligible private school pupils. No showing has been made here. 475 F.2d at 1348 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barrera v. Wheeler“In the states where dual enrollment programs have been conducted, the United States Commissioner of Education has found that teacher services are provided under Title I in a comparable and equitable manner. Title I specifically offers this method as one of the alternatives for complying with the Act, 20 U.S.C. § 241e(a)(2), and as the Commissioner has pointed out, this is one of the most feasible ways to achieve compliance. 475 F.2d at 1349 n. 18.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barrera v. Wheeler
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.