Geier v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
801 F.2d 799 · 1986
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Leadbetter v. Gilley (2004), Black Law Enforcement Officers Ass'n v. City of Akron (1987)
19 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000H
Relies on Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Green v. County School Board of New Kent County · Davis v. Alaska · United States v. Armour & Co.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“designed to effect such desegregation of the higher educational institutions in Tennessee, with particular attention to Tennessee A & I State University, as to indicate the dismantling of the dual system now existing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In general the position taken by the objectors is that by merely objecting, they are entitled to stop the settlement in its tracks, without demonstrating any factual basis for their objections and to force the parties to expend large amounts of time, money and effort to answer their rhetorical questions, notwithstanding the copious discovery available from years of prior litigation and extensive pre-trial proceedings. To allow the objectors to disrupt the settlement on the basis of nothing more than their unsupported suppositions would completely thwart the settlement process. On their theory no class action would ever be settled, so long as there was at least a single lawyer around who would like to replace counsel for the class and start the case anew. To permit the objectors to manipulate the distribution of the burden of proof to achieve such an end would be to permit too much. Although the parties reaching the settlement have the obligation to support their conclusion to the satisfaction of the District Court, once they have done so, they are not under any recurring obligation to take up their burden again and again ad infinitum unless the objectors have made a clear and specific showing that vital material was ignored by the District Court. There is no need for the District Court to hold an additional evidentiary hearing on the propriety of the settlement. Its conclusion appears to have been reached only after a thorough investigation of all relevant facts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Id. at 660 . In approving the consent decree the district court relied on these earlier findings and its own determination that the residual effects of past discrimination have not been eliminated. 593 F.Supp. at 1265-66 . The United States participated fully in all stages of the proceedings leading to these decisions. We think the record in this case establishes without question that a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Geier v. Alexander
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.