Reed v. Rhodes’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 714 · 1979
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1998 · most notably Cleveland Board of Education Et Al. v. Reed Et Al. (1980), Jean v. Nelson (1983)
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 · Bolling v. Sharpe
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) the [defendant’s] knowledge (if any) of the [local board’s] intentional segregative practices, (2) the [defendant’s] failure to protest or restrain them by withholding funds, (3) the [defendant’s] continuance of support in the face of such knowledge, (4) the motivation of the [defendant] in failing to investigate the reasons for de facto segregation, and (5) the effect of findings, if any, under 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, as suggested in [Dayton Board of Educatiori v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406 , 97 S.Ct. 2766 , 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977) ].””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]here plaintiffs prove that the school authorities have carried out a systematic program of segregation affecting a substantial portion of the students, schools, teachers, and facilities within the school system, it is only common sense to conclude that there exists a predicate for a finding of the existence of a dual school system.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While in some respects the findings of segregative purpose on the part of the state serve to meet the Dayton requirements, [Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406 , 97 S.Ct. 2766 , 53 L.Ed.2d 85 (1977)], Dayton appears to us to negate a state liability finding entered principally on the ground of failure of the state to compel its subdivision to comply with the United States Constitution. As we have indicated in the Columbus opinion, [Penick v. Columbus Board of Education, 583 F.2d 787 (6th Cir. 1978), aff’d 443 U.S. 449 , 99 S.Ct. 2941 , 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979)], knowledge by the state of intentional segregative practices on the part of the local board and intentional support of the local board in pursuing such practices appear to be requirements for a finding of ■ constitutional violation. For these reasons, the question of state board liability is again remanded to the District Court for answers to the questions posed in Penick v. Columbus Board of Education.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Reed v. Rhodes
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.