Morgan v. Kerrigan’s Empirical Analysis
523 F.2d 917 · 1975
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Morgan v. Kerrigan (1976), United States v. School District of Ferndale (1978)
10 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · Permian Basin Area Rate Cases · Green v. County School Board of New Kent County · Keyes v. School District No 1 Denver Colorado · Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court and the individual justices sitting as Circuit Justices have been insistent in their refusal to tolerate delay in the implementation of required desegregation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * [The defendants] argue first that Rule 53(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the court ‘accept the master’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous’. This section of the rule has reference to actions tried without a jury, i. e., where the master is to a large extent supplanting a judge as a finder of facts. As to those facts, but not the legal conclusions to be drawn therefrom, the master’s findings are more than advisory. Even if the reference here was of this type, the district court could then hear objections to the report and receive further evidence, as the court below did in this case. ‘The court after hearing may adopt the report or may modify it or may reject it in whole or in part . .’ Rule 53(e)(2). But the reference here was not a substitute for trial, a trial on the merits of the case having already been completed. This was a reference under Rule 53(c) specifying and limiting the powers of the masters to ‘report only upon particular issues . to receive and report evidence.’ The district judge could not delegate his duty to evaluate for himself what actions had to be undertaken in order to remedy past failure to comply with the Constitution.” Morgan v. Kerrigan, 523 F.2d 917, 921-22 (1st Cir. 1975) (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court's review of orders issued in the exercise of the district court's equitable powers is limited to a determination whether there has been an abuse of discretion.”
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.