Dowell v. Board of Education of the Oklahoma City Public Schools’s Empirical Analysis
890 F.2d 1483 · 1989
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools Independent School District No 89 Oklahoma County Oklahoma v. L Dowell (1991), Reed v. Rhodes (1999)
15 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 20 U.S.C. § 1701 (§ 202 of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a finding by the District Court that the Oklahoma City School District was being operated in compliance with the commands of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that it was unlikely that the Board would return to its former ways, would be a finding that the purposes of the desegregation litigation had been fully achieved. No additional showing of “grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions” is required of the Board.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ljocal control over the education of children allows citizens to participate in deci-sionmaking, and allows innovation so that school programs can fit local needs.... Dissolving a desegregation decree after the local authorities have operated in compliance with it for a reasonable period of time properly recognizes that “necessary concern for the important values of local control of public school systems dictates that a federal court’s regulatory control of such systems not extend beyond the time required to remedy the effects of past intentional discrimination....””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Aside from minor alterations necessitated, for example, by a school’s closing, the Board maintained the District under the Finger Plan’s basic techniques of pairing, clustering and compulsory busing, even after the district court declared the District unitary and terminated the case.”
2 later decisions 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.