Reed v. Rhodes’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000D
Relies on Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Rizzo v. Goode · Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · Milliken v. Bradley
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The term 'law' as used in section 3317.-14, Revised Code [presently codified at Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3307.01 (Page 1981) ] forbidding the distribution of state funds to school districts which have not ‘conformed with the law,’ is used in the abstract sense and embraces the aggregate of all those rules and principles enforced and sanctioned by the governing power in the community. Such term embraces the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States under which the segregation of pupils in schools according to race is forbidden. (2) The primary responsibility for administering the laws relating to the distribution of state and federal funds to the several public school districts is placed with the state board of education, subject to the approval of the state controlling board. (3) It is the responsibility of the state board of education in the first instance to determine whether a particular school district, or the board of education of such district, ‘has not conformed with the law’ so as to require the withholding of state funds from such district. In making such determination the state board of education should observe the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 119, Revised Code, as to notice, hearing, summoning of witnesses, presentation of evidence, degree of proof, and procedural matters generally. (4) Following a determination by the state board of education that a school district ‘has not conforme”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The failure of the State Board to take actions intended to eliminate segregation can, when combined with other facts, support a finding of constitutional violation, for ‘the Constitution can be violated by inaction as well as deeds.’ [citations omitted] Thus, a state which initially compelled or authorized the creation of a local dual system of education has a continuing affirmative duty to eradicate all lingering effects of segregation; the neglect of that constitutional duty renders the State liable.... Even if a State took no part in the creation of a local dual system of public education, it can be liable with local officials if it or its agents adhered to a deliberate policy of tolerating or supporting intentional racial segregation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Ohio has very few separate schools for colored children. Ten cities reported the existence of separate schools for colored children. These schools are located in centers where the population is mostly comprised of colored people. The following cities reported separate schools — Cincinnati, Chillicothe, Columbus, Dayton, Gallipolis, Lockland, Mansfield (classes only), Middletown, Portsmouth, Wilmington, and Xenia. Cincinnati and Columbus have a separate Junior High School for children in one locality, as well as elementary schools for colored children.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.