Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 683 F.2d 963 - Bell v. Board of Education

Bell v. Board of Education’s Empirical Analysis

683 F.2d 963 · 1982

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
April 2017
most recently cited

19 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Los Angeles Branch NAACP v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1984), Jenkins v. State of Missouri (1987)

19 federal appellate ·

2901982199020002010decided

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 Columbus Board of Education v. Penick · Senter v. General Motors Corp. · Austin Independent School District v. United States · Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education · Bronson v. Board of Education

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

  1. “[A] public body should not be required to defend repeatedly against the same charge of improper conduct if it has been vindicated in an action brought by a person or group who validly and fairly represent those whose rights are alleged to have been infringed. Though the plaintiffs in the instant action are not the same persons as those who instituted [the earlier action], that action was brought to vindicate the rights of all minority school children and parents affected by the actions and policies of the ... Board. There is a strong community of interest between the [earlier class] and the Bronson plaintiffs and both actions sought relief on behalf of the same large group of black citizens. For the purposes of [preclusion] we do not consider the plaintiffs in the present action to be “strangers” to the [earlier] litigation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “we would open up for relitigation all school desegregation judgments .... A plaintiff who disagrees with a prior final determination of liability ... would be entitled to relitigate the finding of liability. Rights and duties in desegregation cases previously litigated and established would never become final. They would always be subject to collateral attack. Desegregation judgments, like tickets to the theater, would be good for today’s show only.”
    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.