green
Positive treatment
2.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
18 Fair empl.prac.cas. 503, 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8628 Clifton Wiggins, Cross-Appellants v. Spector Freight System, Inc., Cross-Appellee, and Teamsters Local 667
But see Gay Games, Inc. v. Smith, 132 F.2d 930, 931 (7th Cir. 1943). * * * " 16 Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 369 F.2d 55, 63-64 (6th Cir. 1966), Cert. denied, 389 U.S. 847 , 88 S.Ct. 39 , 19 L.Ed.2d 114 (1967). 17 The District Court concluded that Spector was not legally responsible for any claims of unlawful racial discrimination which the plaintiffs or their class may have had against its predecessor Viking.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Wiggins v. Spector Freight System, Inc.
But see Gay Games, Inc. v. Smith, 132 F.2d 930, 931 (7th Cir. 1943). * * * ” Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 369 F.2d 55 , 63 — 64 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 847 , 88 S.Ct. 39 , 19 L.Ed.2d 114 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
Martin Luther King Junior Elementary School Children v. Michigan Board of Education
See Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 369 F.2d 55, 59-60 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 847 , 88 S.Ct. 39 , 19 L.Ed.2d 114 (1969).
cited
Cited "see"
Penick v. Columbus Board of Education
See Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 369 F.2d 55 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 847 , 88 S.Ct. 39 , 19 L.Ed.2d 114 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
Laufman v. Oakley Bldg. & Loan Co.
See, Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 369 F.2d 55 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 847 , 88 S.Ct. 39 , 19 L.Ed.2d 114 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
Quadra v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CITY & CTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
See Doff v. Brunswick Corporation, 372 F.2d 801, 805 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 820 , 88 S.Ct. 39 , 19 L.Ed. 2d 71 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bronson v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF CITY SCHOOL DIST.
See also, Higgins v. Board of Education of the City of Grand Rapids, 508 F.2d 779 (6th Cir.1974), and Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 244 F.Supp. 572 (S.D.Ohio 1965), aff'd 369 F.2d 55 (6th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 847 , 88 S.Ct. 39 , 19 L.Ed.2d 114 (1967) [Deal I]. (2) The Racial Containment Theory Under the “racial containment” theory, Plaintiffs postulate that the Suburban Defendants, as well as the other named Defendants, either singularly or collectively, are somehow responsible for containing blacks within the City of Cincinnati.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Griffith v. Realty Executives, Inc. (In Re Griffith)
International U., D. 50, U.M.W. v. Mathiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co., 291 F.Supp. 578 (N.D.W.Va.1968); see Bolack v. Underwood, supra; see also Doff v. Brunswick Corporation, 372 F.2d 801 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 820 , 88 S.Ct. 39 , 19 L.Ed.2d 71 (1967).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Brody-Jones v. MacChiarola
See, e. g., Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 369 F.2d 55, 60 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 847 , 88 S.Ct. 39 , 19 L.Ed.2d 114 (1967).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mathis v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.
See, e. g., Doff v. Brunswick Corp., 372 F.2d 801, 804 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 820 , 88 S.Ct. 39 , 19 L.Ed.2d 71 (1967); Continental Aircraft Sales v. McDermott Bros.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
George Arthur v. Ewald P. Nyquist
See, e. g., Deal v. Cincinatti Board of Education, 369 F.2d 55 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 847 , 88 S.Ct. 39 , 19 L.Ed.2d 114 (1967). 12 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Donald Davis, Jr., a Minor by His Mother and Next Friend Mrs. Sadie Davis v. School District of the City of Pontiac, Inc.
See also Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 369 F.2d 55 (C.A.6) cert. den., 389 U.S. 847 , 88 S.Ct. 39 , 19 L.Ed.2d 114 ; Northcross v. Memphis City Schools Board of Education, 420 F.2d 546 , aff., 397 U.S. 232 , 90 S.Ct. 891 , 25 L.Ed.2d 246 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lee v. Nyquist
Compare Green v. County School Bd., 391 U.S. 430, 440-442 , 88 S.Ct. 1689 , 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968) with Deal v. Cincinnati Bd. of Education, 369 F.2d 55 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 847 , 88 S.Ct. 39 , 19 L.Ed.2d 114 (1967), opinion on appeal after remand, 419 F.2d 1387 (6th Cir. 1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tometz v. Board of Education
(Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Human Relations Com. v. Chester School District, (Sept. 1967) 427 Pa. 157 , 233 A.2d 290 ; Massachusetts School Committee of Boston v. Board of Education, (June, 1967) ___ Mass. ___, 227 N.E.2d 729 , appeal dismissed, (Jan. 15, 1968) ___ U.S. ___, 19 L.Ed.2d 778 , 88 S.Ct. 692 ; New Jersey Booker v. Board of Education of Plainfield, (1965) 45 N.J. 161 , 212 A.2d 1 ; Morean v. Board of Education of Montclair, (1964) 42 N.J. 237 , 200 A.2d 97 ; California Jackson v. Pasadena City School District, (1963) 59 Cal. *598 2d 876, 382 P.2d 878 ; New York Addabb…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Deal
v.
Cincinnati Board of Education
v.
Cincinnati Board of Education
No. 131.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 9, 1967.
Norris Muldrow and Robert L. Carter for petitioners., C. R. Beirne and William A. McClain for respondents.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.