Jackson v. Parish School Board’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “American citizens have a constitutional right to participate fully and effectively in the election of county governmental authorities, ... reapportionment plans, whether adopted by legislative enactment or court. order, are not immutable. The judicial process must be flexible enough to allow changes to schemes that have, because of changing population patterns and the developing body of constitutional jurisprudence, become unconstitutional in their operation. [While decennial a reapportionment as a rational method], ... this does not mean that a political body cannot be compelled to reapportion itself more than once every ten years. A challenge to the constitutionality of a court — or a reapportionment plan — is not precluded by principles of res judicata or federal estoppel. It has long been established that res judicata is no defense where, between the first and second suits, there has been an intervening change in the law or modification of significant facts creating new legal conditions ... Such inequity becomes particularly intolerable when, as here, constitutional rights are involved. This court has thus been unwilling to bar subsequent challenges to reapportionment schemes, seemingly constitutional when institute by the court, but apparently adequate under the rapidly changing jurisprudence in this area....”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson · Jaffree v. Wallace

2. “The plaintiffs might have moved under Rule 60(b)(5), F.R.C.P., for relief from the prior judgment on the grounds that it "is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.” Plaintiffs did not seek to overturn elections that took place under the challenged apportionment scheme, but to secure a modification of the plan before any more elections were held. A Rule 60(b) motion would have allowed the judge to consider within a single action all issues relating to the DeSoto Parish apportionment plan. We note, however, that in reapportionment, unlike school desegregation and institutional reform cases, the court's jurisdiction is not continuing, and the plan, once adopted and acted upon, does not require further judicial supervision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Hosemann

3. “(a) subsequent change in the law should also negate the res judicata effect of a decision where, and to the extent that, (1) the rights adjudicated in that decision do not accrue until after the intervening change in the law has occurred, and (2) the operation of res judicata would result in unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Erspan v. Badgett