Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 837 F.2d 1181 - United States v. Yonkers Board of Education

United States v. Yonkers Board of Education’s Empirical Analysis

837 F.2d 1181 · 1987

Citation profile

186
cited by 186 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

73 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 186 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Spallone v. United States (1990), Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp. (1998)

73 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions

8801987199020002010decided

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. § 1437F · 42 U.S.C. § 1441 (Housing Act of 1949) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C · 42 U.S.C. § 3601 (§ 801 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (§ 804 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3613 (§ 813 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))

Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Washington v. Davis

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

  1. “[T]he consensus is that a plaintiff need prove only discriminatory effect, and need not show that the decision complained of was made with discriminatory intent.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he court should tailor the remedy to fit the nature and extent of the violation.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “'the choice of remedies to redress racial discrimination is a balancing process left, within appropriate constitutional or statutory limits, to the sound discretion of the trial court' . . . . The district court, which has 'first-hand experience with the parties and is best qualified to deal with the flinty, intractable realities of day-to-day implementation of constitutional commands,' must be given a great deal of flexibility and discretion in choosing the remedy best suited to curing the violation . . . .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
    e.g. LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher · United States v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Third-Party Shirley C. Brown, in Her Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents Lora Bradley Chodos, in Her Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents Thomas Frey, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents Willard A. Genrich, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents Norma Gluck Emlyn I. Griffith, in Her Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents Floyd S. Linton, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents Vincent Tese United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Samuel Pierce Salvadore Sclafini, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents Thomas Sobol Mario Cuomo Martin C. Barrell, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents James McCabe Sr., in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents Mimi Levin Lieber, in Her Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents Yonkers Community Development Agency, City of Yonkers Cross Yonkers Board of Education v. Yonkers Federation of Teachers Intervenor Yonkers Branch National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Intervenor Cross R. Carlos Carballada, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents Louise P. Matteoni, in His Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Regents Edward Meyer, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents Jorge L. Battista, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents State of New York Board of Regents of the State of New York Adelaide L. Sanford, in Her Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Regents Urban Development Corporation of the State of New York George Pataki, as Governor of the State of New York Richard P. Mills, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York H. Carl McCall as Comptroller of the State of New York

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.