green
Positive treatment
15.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yonkers Board Of Education v. United States
To hold otherwise would fail to take account of the obligations of local governments, under the Supremacy Clause, to fulfill the requirements that the Constitution imposes on them. 23 Missouri v. Jenkins, --- U.S. ----, ----, 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1666 , 109 L.Ed.2d 31 (1990); see also North Carolina State Bd. of Educ. v. Swann, 402 U.S. 43, 45 , 91 S.Ct. 1284 , 1286 28 L.Ed.2d 586 (1971) (invalidating state law that proscribed student assignmen ts on the basis of race on grounds that "state policy must give way when it ope rates to hinder vindication of federal constitutional guarantees"); Hoots v.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Yonkers Board of Education
Missouri v. Jenkins, — U.S. -, -, 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1666 , 109 L.Ed.2d 31 (1990); see also North Carolina State Bd. of Educ. v. Swann, 402 U.S. 43, 45 , 91 S.Ct. 1284, 1286 , 28 L.Ed.2d 586 (1971) (invalidating state law that proscribed student assignments on the basis of race on grounds that “state policy must give way when it operates to hinder vindication of federal constitutional guarantees”); Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 672 F.2d 1124, 1131-32 (3d Cir.1982) (holding that state law governing the consolidation of school districts and school board elections did not bind the district court in i…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kalima Jenkins, by Her Friend, Kamau Agyei Carolyn Dawson, by Her Next Friend, Richard Dawson Tufanza A. Byrd, by Her Next Friend, Teresa Byrd Derek A. Dydell, by His Next Friend, Maurice Dydell Terrance Cason, by His Next Friend, Antoria Cason Jonathan Wiggins, by His Next Friend, Rosemary Jacobs Love Kirk Allan Ward, by His Next Friend, Mary Ward Robert M. Hall, by His Next Friend, Denise Hall Dwayne A. Turrentine, by His Next Friend, Shelia Turrentine Gregory A. Pugh, by His Next Friend, Barbara Pugh Cynthia Winters, by Her Next Friend, David Winters on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and American Federation of Teachers, Local 691 v. The State of Missouri, Honorable John Ashcroft, Governor of the State of Missouri, Wendell Bailey, Treasurer of the State of Missouri, Missouri State Board of Education, Roseann Bentley, Dan Blackwell, Terry A. Bond, President, Delmar A. Cobble, Grover Gamm, Jimmy Robertson, Robert L. Welling, Donald E. West, Members of the Missouri State Board of Education, Arthur L. Mallory, Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri, and School District of Kansas City, Missouri and Claude C. Perkins, Superintendent Thereof, Kalima Jenkins, by Her Friend, Kamau Agyei, and American Federation of Teachers, Local 691 v. The State of Missouri, and School District of Kansas City, Missouri, Icelean Clark Bobby Anderton Eleanor Graham John C. Howard Craig Martin Gay D. Williams Kansas City Mantel & Tile Co. Coulas & Griffin Insurance Agency, Inc. Sharon Dunham Lindsay K. Kirk Linda Frazier Rick Feierabend Linda Hollenbeck James Hollenbeck Susan Horseman and Clifford M. Horseman, Kalima Jenkins, by Her Friend, Kamau Agyei, and American Federation of Teachers, Local 691 v. The State of Missouri, and School District of Kansas City, Missouri, Icelean Clark Bobby Anderton Eleanor Graham John C. Howard Craig Martin Gay D. Williams Kansas City Mantel & Tile Co. Coulas & Griffin Insurance Agency, Inc. Sharon Dunham Lindsay K. Kirk Linda Frazier Rick Feierabend Linda Hollenbeck James Hollenbeck Susan Horseman and Clifford M. Horseman, Jackson County, Missouri, Kalima Jenkins, by Her Friend, Kamau Agyei, and American Federation of Teachers, Local 691 v. The State of Missouri, and School District of Kansas City, Kalima Jenkins, by Her Friend, Kamau Agyei, and American Federal of Teachers, Local 691 v. The State of Missouri, and School District of Kansas City, Missouri, Jackson County, Missouri William Waris Bernice J. Conley Gary Panetheire Beverly O. Ross Michael Bendergast, Their Officials, Kalima Jenkins, by Her Friend, Kamau Agyei, and American Federation of Teachers, Local 691 v. The State of Missouri, and School District of Kansas City
"We have likewise held in ordering implementation of a school integration plan that 'the remedial power of the federal courts under the Fourteenth Amendment is not limited by state law.' " United States v. Missouri, 515 F.2d at 1372 -73 (quoting Haney v. County Bd. of Educ., 429 F.2d 364, 368 (8th Cir.1970)). 81 Moreover, this general supremacy principle applies in cases concerning state tax laws as well as any other type of state laws.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jenkins ex rel. Agyei v. Missouri
“We have likewise held in ordering implementation of a school integration plan that ‘the remedial power of the federal courts under the Fourteenth Amendment is not limited by state law.’ ” United States v. Missouri, 515 F.2d at 1372 -73 (quoting Haney v. County Bd. of Educ., 429 F.2d 364, 368 (8th Cir.1970)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Diaz v. San Jose Unified School District
See Arvizu v. Waco Independent School District, 495 F.2d 499, 505 (5th Cir.1974); Bivens v. Bibb County Board of Education, 460 F.2d 430, 433 (5th Cir.1972); Haney v. County Board of Education, 429 F.2d 364, 372 (8th Cir.1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hoots v. Pennsylvania
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Aside from the fact that it is far from clear that any provisions of state law could be said to have been violated in this case, 14 however, the fundamental defect in appellants’ argument is that “the remedial power of the federal courts under the Fourteenth Amendment is not limited by state law,” Haney v. County Board of Education, 429 F.2d 364, 368 (8th Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hoots v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
As such, the principle of proportional representation is simply not applicable. 24 Plaintiffs and General Braddock reply that state law itself requires the election of school board members and conclude that that renders the proportional representation principle applicable to the present case. 13 They also rely on the Pennsylvania statute governing consolidation of school districts, which requires that "in selecting the interim operating committee, the incumbent school directors shall take into consideration the principle of proportionate representation according to population." 24 Penn.Stat. �…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mitchell v. McCunney
Accord, Fitzpatrick v. Bd. of Ed., supra; Haney v. County Bd. of Ed., 429 F.2d 364, 372 (8th Cir. 1970).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Anderson
No. 59, Ark., supra at 712-713; Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, supra at 372.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
17 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1772, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7812, 2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 724 Herbert Williams, Virginia S. Williams, Robert Manson, Mary Manson and Donald Massey, Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Robert Anderson, Ella Mae Carroll, William Doug Grizzle, Lew Sorrels, Carl Geisler, Directors of the Brinkley School District, and Dewey Snowden, Superintendent of the Brinkley School District, Defendants- Appellees/cross-Appellants
No. 59, Ark., supra at 712-713; Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, supra at 372.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Evans v. Buchanan
See Louisiana v. United States, 380 *352 U.S. 145, 154-56, 85 S.Ct. 817, 822 , 13 L.Ed.2d 709, 715 (1965); Haney v. Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364, 368 (8th Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. BOARD OF SCH. COM'RS OF CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, IND.
United States v. Scotland Neck Board of Education, 407 U.S. 484, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2214 , 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972); Wright v. City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 463 , 92 S.Ct. 2196 , 33 L.Ed.2d 51 (1972); United States v. State of Texas, 447 F.2d 441, 443-444 (5 Cir. 1971); Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364, 368 (8 Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley v. Milliken
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Section III B, pp. 238-241, supra. United States v. Scotland Neck Board of Education, 407 U.S. 484, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2214 , 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972); Wright v. City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 463 , 92 S.Ct. 2196 , 33 L.Ed.2d 51 (1972); United States v. State of Texas, 447 F.2d 441, 443-444 (5th Cir. 1971); Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364, 368 (8th Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Board of School Commissioners of Indianapolis
United States v. Scotland Neck Board of Education, 407 U.S. 484, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2214 , 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972); Wright v. City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 463 , 92 S.Ct. 2196 , 33 L.Ed.2d 51 (1972); United States v. State of Texas, 447 F.2d 441, 443-444 (5 Cir. 1971); Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364, 368 (8 Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley v. Milliken
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Scotland Neck Board of Education, 407 U.S. 484, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2214 , 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972); Wright v. City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 463 , 92 S.Ct. 2196 , 33 L.Ed.2d 51 (1972); United States v. State of Texas, 447 F.2d 441, 443-444 (5th Cir. 1971); Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364, 368 (8th Cir. 1970).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Texas Education Agency (Austin Independent School District)
Haney, supra, 429 F.2d at 372.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia
Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364, 368 (8th Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Addie Moore v. The Board of Education of the Chidester School District No. 59, Chidester, Arkansas
Francis Co., Ark., 430 F.2d 1359, 1363 (8th Cir. 1970); Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364, 370, 371 (8th Cir. 1970); North Carolina Teachers Ass’n v. Asheboro City Bd. of Ed., 393 F.2d 736, 743 (4th Cir. 1968) (en banc); Rolfe v. County Board of Education of Lincoln County, Tenn., 391 F.2d 77, 80 (6th Cir. 1968); Chambers v. Hendersonville City Board of Education, 364 F.2d 189, 192 (4th Cir. 1966) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
Where black schools are closed and the principal burden of transportation placed upon black students, “* * * there is a heavy burden on the school board * * * to explain the closing of facilities formerly used for the instruction of black students.” Haney v. County Bd. of Ed. of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364, 372 (8th Cir., 1970).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor v. Coahoma County School District
Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364, 368 (8 Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Liddell v. Board of Educ. of City of St. Louis
"State policy must give way when it operates to hinder vindication of federal constitutional guarantees." North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, 402 U.S. 43, 45 , 91 S.Ct. 1284, 1286 , 28 L.Ed.2d 586 (1971); see Haney v. County Board of Education, 429 F.2d 364, 368 (8th Cir.1970).
cited
Cited "see"
Robert J. Davis v. Board Of Education Of The North Little Rock, Arkansas, School District
See Haney v. County Board of Education, 429 F.2d 364, 372 (8th Cir. 1970).
cited
Cited "see"
Davis v. Board of Education
See Haney v. County Board of Education, 429 F.2d 364, 372 (8th Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alesia Lee Fitzpatrick v. Board of Education, City of Enid Public Schools
(2×)
See Haney v. County Bd. of Educ., 429 F.2d 364, 371 (8th Cir. 1970).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. School District
See Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364, 371 (8th Cir. 1970).
cited
Cited "see"
Thompson v. School Board of the Newport News
See Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County (8th Cir. 1970) 429 F.2d 364 , 372. 1a The most difficult issue posed by the plaintiffs relates to the assignment of pupils in grades 1 and 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
Frank v. Thompson v. The School Board of the City of Newport News, Virginia, Frank v. Thompson v. The School Board of the City of Newport News, Virginia
See Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County (8th Cir. 1970) 429 F.2d 364 , 372. 1a 11 The most difficult issue posed by the plaintiffs relates to the assignment of pupils in grades 1 and 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lee v. MacOn County Board of Education
See Monroe v. Board of Commissioners of Jackson, 391 U.S. at 459 , 88 S.Ct. at 1700 . 25 In Gordon v. Jefferson Davis Parish School Board, 5 Cir. 1971, 446 F.2d 266 [No. 30,075], this Court, relying on Quarles, Brice, and Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 8 Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 364 , recently remanded the case to the district court with directions that the court "promptly conduct hearings, and thereon make findings and conclusions as to whether or not the closing [of two schools] was in fact racially motivated." Here, however, it is clear from the record and briefs that the p…
cited
Cited "see"
Philip J. Mainer v. United States Attorney General
See Blackburn v. United States *391 Parole Board, 5 Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 364 ; Boddie v. Weakley, 4 Cir. 1966, 356 F.2d 242 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. School Dist. of Omaha, State of Neb.
Id.; see also, Haney v. County Board of Education, 429 F.2d 364, 371 (8th Cir.1970).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. City of Monroe
See, e. g., Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1970) and United States v. State of Texas, 321 F.Supp. 1043 (E.D.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Pete D. Arvizu v. Waco Independent School District, Patricia Ann Baisey v. The Board of Trustees of the Waco Independent School District
See also Haney v. County Bd. of Education, 429 F.2d 364, 372 (8th Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moss v. Stamford Board of Education
Hart v. County School Board of Arlington County, supra; Gordon v. Jefferson Davis Parish School Board, supra; Allen v. City of Asheville Board of Education, 434 F.2d 902 (4th Cir. 1970) ; Wright v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua County, 431 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1970) ; Carr v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 429 F.2d 382 (5th Cir. 1970) ; Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Board of Education, supra; Felder v. Harnett County Board of Education, supra; Mims v. Duval County School Board, supra; see also, Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1970).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Betty J. BUCKLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COYLE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
See also Haney v. County Bd. of Educ. of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364, 371 (8th Cir. 1970); Wall v. Stanly County Bd. of Educ., 378 F.2d 275 , 278 (4th Cir. 1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moss Ex Rel. Moss v. Stamford Board of Education
Nor are they claiming that the decision to close only the predominantly Black schools is unconstitutional. 3 Compare Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, supra (disapproving closing of Black schools for racial reasons) with Carr v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 429 F.2d 382 (5th Cir. 1970) (approving closing of Black schools for non-racial reasons); see also Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1970) (requiring justification for closing Black schools).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Guy Junior BLACKBURN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U. S. PAROLE BOARD, Respondent-Appellee
v.
U. S. PAROLE BOARD, Respondent-Appellee
29482.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 7, 1970.
Guy Junior Blackburn, pro se., John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Allen I. Hirsch, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Bell, Ainsworth, Godbold.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from the denial of appellant’s petitions for writs of habeas corpus and mandamus. Appellant has contended that he was being illegally detained on the ground that he was denied counsel at his parole revocation hearing. Since appellant was unconditionally released from custody on April 22, 1970, this appeal is moot and is dismissed. [1]
1
. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se ease summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(e) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.