Arthur v. Nyquist’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate ·

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

1. “employed staff hiring practices that contribute to a racially segregated school system.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Crumpton v. Bridgeport Education Association · Crumpton v. Bridgeport Education Ass'n

2. “Nor was the District Court’s authority impaired, as the Federation contends, by the Supreme Court’s decisions in American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63 [ 102 S.Ct. 1534 , 71 L.Ed.2d 748 ] (1982), and International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 [ 97 S.Ct. 1843 , 52 L.Ed.2d 396 ] (1977). In those Title VII cases, the Supreme Court ruled that bona fide seniority systems must be honored, unless there has been a finding of actual intent to discriminate ... Here, however, the suit was brought to remedy violations of the Constitution rather than Title VII, and the District Court made a finding of intentional discrimination in the Board’s maintenance of a segregated school system. We therefore agree with the District Court that it had the authority to curtail the seniority rights of the Federation’s membership in order to vindicate the constitutional rights of the minority children in the Buffalo school system____ Once a local board of education has been found to have employed staff hiring practices that contribute to a racially segregated school system, the District Court has the power to remedy those practices and to override seniority systems that perpetuate those practices.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 591 F. Supp. 1194 - NAACP v. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n (DPOA)

3. “Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. 284, 293-94 , 96 S.Ct. 1538, 1544 , 47 L.Ed.2d 792 (1976) (quoting Milliken I, supra, 418 U.S. at 744 , 94 S.Ct. at 3127 ). In particular, when a district court is shaping relief that will infringe upon seniority rights, the court must take care that the relief is necessary to correct constitutional violations. See Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, supra, 706 F.2d at 763 . 21 Applying these standards, we find the District Court's remedial plan to be largely acceptable. Certainly the District Court's imposition of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arthur v. Nyquist