512 F. Supp. 839 - Evans v. Buchanan’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2007
6 federal appellate · 8 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
Relies on Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Washington v. Davis · 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in this case the forms of ancillary remedial relief particularized below are necessary and essential, to overcome the dual school system and the vestige effects of de jure segregation and to assure an effective transition to a racially nondiscriminatory unitary school system. In mandating this relief, the substantial authority of state and local officials in managing educational affairs is recognized by according ample latitude to the [New Castle County Planning Board of Education]. The precise development and actual implementation of remedial relief is left to the discretion of educational authorities. On this record, however, the Court is compelled to delineate certain general guidelines for ancillary relief required to redress the continuing constitutional violation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Past constitutional violations of the State Board and its default in the face of its duty to dismantle the dual school system are relevant considerations in deciding whether the present plan was adopted with an invidious purpose. See Arlington Heights, supra, 429 U.S. at 267 [ 97 S.Ct. at 564 ]. Those past wrongs, however, do not permit the Court to presume that all subsequent actions of the State Board are unconstitutionally motivated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Will the proposed modification in the system of organization of the public schools permit the effective continuance of the transition to a unitary school system and the elimination of the vestiges of de jure segregation? If the evidence adduced ... persuades the Court that the answer is yes, then the Court will be obliged to permit [implementation of the proposed change]. •”
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.