Larry Lucille P v. Riles P’s Empirical Analysis
793 F.2d 969 · 1984
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2016 · most notably James Alexander Director Alabama Department of Public Safetys v. Martha Sandoval (2001), Hunt, Governor of North Carolina v. Cromartie (2001)
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 20 U.S.C. § 1412 · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 29 U.S.C. § 706 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D
Relies on Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The tests were developed and standardized in the United States on white, essentially middle-class groups_ Although several leading figures in the early testing movement saw no problem with this situation, given their own racial prejudices or at least strong ethnocentrism, others, including Dr. Wechsler, the developer of the Wechsler battery of tests central to this litigation, frankly admitted the problem. Wechsler stated in 1944 that the tests were not valid for the ‘colored population of the United States.’ His tests, like the others involved here, had not been made suitable for minority racial and ethnic groups. The tests had been adjusted, for example, to eliminate difference in the average scores between the sexes, but a comparable effort was not made and has never been made for black and white children.”
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.