Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 N.C. App. 461 - Taborn v. Hammonds

83 N.C. App. 461 - Taborn v. Hammonds’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2016

14 state decisions

601986199020002010decided

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 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Withrow v. Larkin · Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute · Thompson v. Wake County Board of Education · Taylor v. Crisp

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

  1. “3. That as a result of the head count audit of the Exceptional Children Program of the Durham City Schools performed by the staff of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction . . . the Durham City Schools were notified . . . that for the 1984-85 school year the previously indicated initial allotment of 970 students for the federally funded EHA, Title VI-B program was being reduced to 726 students and the previously indicated initial allotment of 924 students weighted within caps for State Aid fund was being reduced to 748 students weighted within caps. 4. That the above mentioned reduced head count resulted in the initial proposed allotment for EHA, Title VI-B program being reduced by $58,560.00 and the State Aid Exceptional Children initial proposed allotment being reduced by $211,150.72. 5. That because of the aforementioned loss of funds, the Exceptional Children Program, which had been staffed in reliance upon the initial proposed allotments, did not have sufficient funds for personnel expenses to pay all the professional and para-professional persons who had originally been assigned to said program for the 1984-85 school year. 6. That if the budget shortfall were not addressed during the 1984-85 school year, the deficit would grow and would have to be suffered in later school years. 7. That the superintendent determined that the budget deficit needed to be addressed during 1984-85 school year rather than extending the deficit into later school years. 8. That at”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.