Brown v. Banking Board’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2007
20 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 Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Dancy v. Owens · Anglo-Canadian Shipping Company Limited, Canadian Occidental Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Federal Maritime Commission and United States of America · Oklahoma Inspection Bureau v. State Board for Property & Casualty Rates · State Ex Rel. Oklahoma State Board of Embalmers & Funeral Directors v. Guardian Funeral Home
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the order of the Banking Board, the reviewing court shall look to the entire record and take into account not only that evidence which supports the Banking Board’s view, but also the evidence contradictory to the view of the Banking Board.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"There can be no doubt about the supremacy of the Supreme Court. This court is placed by the Constitution at the head of the judicial system of the state."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In Allied Investment Company, Inc., v. Oklahoma Securities Commission, 451 P.2d 952 (Okl. 1969) it was stated: `A statutory requirement that an administrative agency make findings of fact and conclusions of law is a matter of substance and not a mere technicality, and if the administrative agency fails to supply such findings, its determinations will not be sustained.' "Also, it is fundamental that an absence of required findings is fatal to the validity of the administrative decisions regardless of whether there may be in the record evidence to support proper findings. Anglo-Canadian Shipping Co. v. Federal Maritime Commission, 310 F.2d 606 (9th Cir.1962). "Findings should be sufficient in content to apprise the parties, the Court of Bank Review, and if necessary, the Supreme Court of the actual basis of the action by the Board, in order that it may be determined whether the Board's decision has support of `substantial evidence' and the law, and to insure against arbitrariness. Findings in general terms are not sufficient. "The purpose of requiring findings of facts has been reiterated many times by this Court: `Findings of administrative agency acting in a quasi-judicial capacity should be a recitation of basic or underlying facts drawn from the evidence, and must be free from ambiguity which raises doubt as to whether board proceeded upon correct legal theory, and must be sufficiently stated to enable reviewing court to intelligently review order and ascertain if facts up”
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.