Evans v. Buchanan’s Empirical Analysis
582 F.2d 750 · 1978
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1996 · most notably Missouri v. Jenkins (1990), Liddell v. State of Missouri Liddell (1984)
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. In-Service Training Administrators, faculty and other staff require orientation and training for desegregation. Therefore, the Board shall formulate and implement a comprehensive in-service training program for teachers, administrators and other staff in order to train personnel to cope with the desegregation process. 2. Reading and Communication Skills The Board shall institute an affirmative reading and communication skills program, which does not resegregate the pupils, in order to remedy the effects of the past discrimination. 3. Curriculum The Board shall provide curriculum offerings and programs which emphasize and reflect the cultural pluralism of the students, and all instructional materials, texts and other curriculum aids shall be free of racial bias. 4. Counseling and Guidance To ameliorate the pressures on students undergoing desegregation and to prevent resegregation under the guise of curriculum or program choices, the Board shall institute an effective and nondiscriminatory counseling and guidance program. This counseling and guidance program must insure that students are counseled on a racially nondiscriminatory basis concerning all programs available in the area of work opportunities and opportunities for a college education; and that the students who choose the vocational and other special public schools in the area do so on an nondiscriminatory, and non-segregated basis. 5. School Building Construction, Site Selection and Use of Existing Schools Selectio”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“that any money budgeted by the State to the Northern New Castle County school system must be used by the NCCPBE, first, to effect the desegregation order, and then to meet the expenses of other programs. Put another way, it is the NCCPBE’s responsibility to work with the money it has by attending first to all aspects of the remedial order, and then to other aspects of the school system’s expenses. The Board has much discretion in setting the priorities within the latter group, but none as to the former. [Emphasis supplied.] For example, and only by way of illustration, the school authorities may decide to curtail certain extracurricular school programs which fall outside the area mandated by the court’s desegregation order, so as to remain within budgetary limits. If any or all of these programs need be cut completely from the budget, this will occur as a result of the legislature’s judgment, not the court’s. The legislators who passed S.B. 457 were well aware of the remedial order which will go into effect [in] September. We must assume not only their ability to compute what the mandatory expenses would be, but also their good faith in so doing. Cognizant of what the State must pay by way of implementing the desegregation plan before using money for other purposes, the legislators arrived at an amount which may or may not imperil other non-Court-ordered aspects of the New Castle County school system. As the Supreme Court stated in Carmichael v. Southern Coal and Coke Co., su”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Evans v. Buchanan“The Order of the Federal Court relating to pupil assignment is the rule of the State Board. Therefore, the following pertinment [sic] parts of the Order are quoted in part and shall be binding on the four new districts. 1 — 9-3 Required By Court Order ‘The Board and its successor is authorized and empowered to implement commencing September, 1978, a pupil assignment plan which reassigns all students from the geographic area of the predominantly black districts (Wilmington and DeLaWarr) to the geographic area of the predominately white districts (Alfred I. duPont, Alexis I. duPont, Claymont, Conrad Area, Marshallton-McKean, Mount Pleasant, New Castle-Gunning Bedford, Newark and Stanton) for nine years and all students from the geographic area of the predominantly white districts to the predominantly black districts for three consecutive years (9-3). ‘The 9-3 pupil assignment plan as implemented shall contain a full 1-12 grade span within the City of Wilmington and at a minimum shall utilize one of the three high schools of the predominantly black districts as a 10-12 grade center.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.