green
Positive treatment
2.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hancock v. Regents of the University of Wisconsin
Ed. 2d 527 ; Kirk v. Regents of University of California (1969), 273 Cal. App. 2d 430 , 78 Cal. Rptr. 260 , appeal dismissed (1970), 396 U. S. 554 , 90 Sup. Ct. 754, 24 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lorenz v. Logue
See, for example, Kirk v. Board of Regents of the University of California, 273 Cal.App.2d 430 , 78 Cal.Rptr. 260 (1969), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 396 U.S. 554 , 90 S.Ct. 754 , 24 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). 3 That serious problems with respect to finance and deteriorating neighborhoods are endemic in municipalities throughout the country is common knowledge and certainly an appropriate area for legislative concern.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Weitzel v. State
See also Kirk v. Board of Regents, 273 Cal. App.2d 430 , 78 Cal. Rptr. 260 (1969), app. dismissed 396 U.S. 554 , 90 S.Ct. 754 , 24 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); Arizona Board of Regents v. Harper, 108 Ariz. 223 , 495 P.2d 453 (1972); Sturgis, et al. v. State of Washington, et al., 368 F. Supp. 38 , aff'd. 414 U.S. 1057 , 94 S.Ct. 563 , 38 L.Ed.2d 464 (1973)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
West v. Bowers
(2×)
Starns et al v. Malkerson et al, 326 F Supp 234 (DC Minn 1970), aff'd, 401 US 985 , 91 S Ct 1231 , 28 L Ed 2d 527 (1971); see also, Kirk v. Regents of University of California, 273 Cal App 2d 430, 78 Cal Rptr 260 (1969), appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question 396 US 554 , 90 S Ct 754 , 24 L Ed 2d 747 (1970).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
KIRK
v.
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
v.
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
No. 836.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 2, 1970.
Charles R. B. Kirk, Norman Dorsen, Clark Byse, and William W. Van Alstyne for appellant., Thomas J. Cunningham and David W. Louisell for appellee.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.