Olff v. East Side Union High Sch. Dist., 404 U.S. 1042 (1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Olff v. East Side Union High Sch. Dist., 404 U.S. 1042 (1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
356 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 71 distinct courts.
Negative lean: 7th  ·  Positive lean: 4th, 2nd, 9th, 3rd, 8th, 6th, 11th, DC, 5th
Strongest positive: C.E. Services, Inc. v. Control Data Corporation (ca5, 1985-05-13) · Strongest negative: Associated Radio Service Company, Associated Radio Company v. Page Airways, Inc. (ca5, 1980-08-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 46 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Associated Radio Service Company, Associated Radio Company v. Page Airways, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: but see · confidence high
See Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winkler & Smith Citrus Products Co., 370 U.S. 19 , 29- *1358 30, 82 S.Ct. 1130, 1135-1136 , 8 L.Ed.2d 305 (1962); Smith v. Southern Airways, Inc., 556 F.2d 1347 (5th Cir. 1977); but see Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1304 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972) (where the evidence was sufficient to create a jury question on monopolization, a verdict identical to the one at issue here could stand without our deciding whether the evidentiary requirements regarding attempts and c…
discussed Cited "but see" Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway And Park District Of Peoria
7th Cir. · 1977 · signal: but see · confidence high
We are not prepared to say that this conclusion would inexorably follow upon the sole proof that the proposal was economically unrealistic, see Noerr, supra, 365 U.S. at 140-42 , 81 S.Ct. 523 ; Metro Cable, supra, 516 F.2d at 231 ; but see Woods Exploration & Producing Company, Inc. v. Aluminum Company of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1296-98 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972), but the economically unrealistic nature of the proposal, alleged to have been known to Park District officials, might support an inference that GSM was not "making a genuine ef…
discussed Cited "but see" Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park District
7th Cir. · 1977 · signal: but see · confidence high
We are not prepared to say that this conclusion would inexorably follow upon the sole proof that the proposal was economically unrealistic, see Noerr, supra, 365 U.S. at 140-42 , 81 S.Ct. 523 ; Metro Cable, supra, 516 F.2d at 231 ; but see Woods Exploration & Producing Company, Inc. v. Aluminum Company of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1296-98 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972), but the economically unrealistic nature of the proposal, alleged to have been known to Park District officials, might support an inference that GSM was not “making a genuine …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) C.E. Services, Inc. v. Control Data Corporation
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
This would be precisely the type of “conduct designed to barricade access to markets ... [that] can constitute a proscribed means of monopolization.” Woods Exploring & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1307 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 *1248 (1971); Walker v. U-Haul Co., 747 F.2d 1011, 1015 (5th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Breese Ex Rel. Breese v. Smith
Alaska · 1972 · confidence medium
Justice Douglas amplified this interpretation of "liberty" in Olff v. East Side Union High School Dist., 404 U.S. 1042, 1144 , 92 S.Ct. 703, 704-705 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736, 737 (1972): The word "liberty" is not defined in the Constitution.
discussed Cited "see" Armstrong Surgical Center, Inc. v. Armstrong County Memorial Hospital
3rd Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Co., Inc. v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 438 F.2d 1286, 1295 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972); see also Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem.
discussed Cited "see" Armstrong Surgical Center, Inc. v. Armstrong County Memorial Hospital
3rd Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 438 F.2d 1286, 1295 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972); see also Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem.
discussed Cited "see" Biovail Corp. International v. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft
D.N.J. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 438 F.2d 1286, 1303 (5th Cir.1971) (holding that actions taken to “subvert” a regulatory scheme “for anticompetitive purposes” are subject to the antitrust laws), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" Music Center S.N.C. Di Luciano Pisoni & C. v. Prestini Musical Instruments Corp.
E.D.N.Y · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration and Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972) (pre-PRE claim against oil producer of filing false oil field nomination forecasts with the Texas Railroad Commission so as to reduce plaintiffs’ oil field pre-duction allowable is abuse of administrative process sufficient to support claim under antitrust laws); Outboard Marine Corp. v. Pezetel, 474 F.Supp. 168 (D.Del.1979) (counterclaim alleging conspiracy to submit knowingly false information to the United States Custom Servic…
discussed Cited "see" IT & E Overseas, Inc. v. RCA Global Communications, Inc.
D.D.C. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hecht v. Pro Football, Inc., 444 F.2d 931 (D.C.Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972); Caribe Trailer Systems v. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority, 475 F.Supp. 711, 723-35 (D.D.C.1979); Star Lines, Ltd. v. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority, 451 F.Supp. 157 (S.D.N.Y.1978); Zapata Gulf Marine Corp. v. Puerto Rico Shipping Authority, 682 F.Supp. 1345 (E.D.La.1988). 12 .
cited Cited "see" City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co. of California
9th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration and Production Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1292-98 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972).
cited Cited "see" City of Long Beach, as Trustee for the State of California v. Standard Oil Company of California Texaco, Incorporated Exxon Corporation Union Oil Company of California Mobil Oil Corporation Shell Oil Company, State of California, on Behalf of Itself and All Political Subdivisions and Special Districts Within the State Similarly Situated v. Standard Oil Co., City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co., in Re: Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation--Mdl 150
9th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration and Production Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1292-98 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" Kaempfer v. Brown
D.D.C. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration and Production Co. v. Aluminum Company of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1312-13 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 *322 S.Ct. 701, 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972); In re National Student Marketing Litigation, 655 F.Supp. 659, 662 (D.D.C.1987).
cited Cited "see" Battle v. Liberty National Life Insurance
N.D. Ala. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1311-16 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972).
cited Cited "see" Consul, Ltd. v. Transco Energy Co.
4th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972).
cited Cited "see" Consul, Ltd. v. Transco Energy Company, Formerly Known as Transco Companies, Inc., and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, (Two Cases) Consul, Ltd. v. Transco Energy Company, Formerly Known as Transco Companies, Inc., and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation
4th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" Westmac, Inc. v. Lon Smith
6th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally P. Areeda, Antitrust Law p 203 (1982 Supp.). 13 Greenwood Utilities Commission v. Mississippi Power Co., 751 F.2d 1484 , 1498 n. 9 (5th Cir.1985). 14 We also agree with the rationale of Razorback that the sham exception is a "narrow one" and "is applicable when the activity in question corrupts governmental processes to such an extent that it constitutes access barring conduct of the sort described in California Motor." 761 F.2d at 487 (citing Woods Exploration & Producing Company v. Aluminum Company of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1296-98 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 ,…
cited Cited "see" Hunt v. American Bank & Trust Company of Baton Rouge, Louisiana
11th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co., 438 F.2d 1286, 1299-1300 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972); Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c).
cited Cited "see" Hunt v. American Bank & Trust Co. of Baton Rouge
11th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co., 438 F.2d 1286, 1299-1300 (5th Cir.1971), ce rt. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972); Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c).
discussed Cited "see" Razorback Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Weaver
8th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Company v. Aluminum Company of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1296-98 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972); see also Israel v. Baxter Laboratories, 466 F.2d 272, 278-79 (D.C.Cir.1972).
discussed Cited "see" Razorback Ready Mix Concrete Company, Inc. v. Charles T. Weaver, Individually and in His Capacity as President of L & S Concrete Company, L & S Concrete Company Webco, Inc., Julian Gilliam, Individually and in His Capacity as President of Gilliam Brothers, Inc. Gilliam Brothers, Inc., Ellen Case, Individually and in Her Capacity as President of Case Concrete Company and Case Concrete Company. Razorback Ready Mix Concrete Company, Inc. v. Charles T. Weaver, Individually and in His Capacity as President of L & S Concrete Co. Webco, Inc., Julian Gilliam, Individually and in His Capacity as President of Gilliam Brothers, Inc. Gilliam Brothers, Inc. Ellen Case, Individually and in Her Capacity as President of Case Concrete Co. Case Concrete Company
8th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Company v. Aluminum Company of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1296-98 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972); see also Israel v. Baxter Laboratories, 466 F.2d 272, 278-79 (D.C.Cir.1972). 9 Chest Hill Co. v. Guttman, 1981-2 Trade Cas.
discussed Cited "see" Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Department of Public Service Regulation (2×)
D. Mont. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. Saddle-back Junior College District, 425 F.2d 426 , 428 n. 2 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 979 , 92 S.Ct. 342 , 30 L.Ed.2d 294 , (1971), 404 U.S. 1042 , 92 S.Ct. 703 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" Mountain States Tel. & Tel. v. DEPT. OF PUB. SERV. (2×)
D. Mont. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. Saddleback Junior College District, 425 F.2d 426 , 428 n. 2 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 979 , 92 S.Ct. 342 , 30 L.Ed.2d 294 , (1971), 404 U.S. 1042 , 92 S.Ct. 703 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" Salveson v. Western States Bankcard Ass'n
N.D. Cal. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Co., Inc. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286 , *574 1313 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972) 7 In particular, the Cartwright Act has been expressly held by California courts to apply to transactions in interstate commerce.
discussed Cited "see" Sage International, Ltd. v. Cadillac Gage Co.
E.D. Mich. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration and Producing Co. v. Aluminum Company of America, 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972) (predating Trucking Unlimited); Outboard Marine, 474 F.Supp. at 177 .
discussed Cited "see" Meridian Investing & Development Corporation v. Suncoast Highland Corporation
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See 28 U.S.C. § 2283 . 6 As we explained in Woods Exploration & Producing Company v. Aluminum Company of America, 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972), the federal courts’ capacity to issue such injunctions “ ‘prevents multiple litigation of the same cause of action and it assures the winner in a federal court that he will not be deprived of the fruits of his victory by a later contrary state judgment which the Supreme Court may or may not decide to review.’ ” 438 F.2d at 1312 , quoting Note, 74 Harv.L.Rev. 726, 734 (1961)…
cited Cited "see" Mid-Texas Communications Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Company of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1296-98 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1975).
discussed Cited "see" Lloyd L. Hayes, Hayes, Inc. v. T. G. Solomon, Gulf States Theatres, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Company v. Aluminum Company of America, 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1971); Blanchard v. Commonwealth Oil Co., 294 F.2d 834 (5th Cir. 1961).
discussed Cited "see" Solinger v. A&M Records
9th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1971), Cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972), Aff'd after retrial, 509 F.2d 784 (5th Cir.), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 833 , 96 S.Ct. 59 , 46 L.Ed.2d 52 (1975) (whether plaintiff is a prospective purchaser is a question of fact for the jury); Pacific Seafarers, Inc. v. Pacific Far East Line, 48 F.R.D. 347, 351 (D.D.C.1969) (determination on motion to dismiss is only whether the pleadings present a triable antitrust issue and show the requisite causation).
discussed Cited "see" Solinger v. A&M Records, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1971), cert, denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972), aff’d after retrial, 509 F.2d 784 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 833 , 96 S.Ct. 59 , 46 L.Ed.2d 52 (1975) (whether plaintiff is a prospective purchaser is a question of fact for the jury); Pacific Seafarers, Inc. v. Pacific Far East Line, 48 F.R.D. 347, 351 (D.D.
cited Cited "see" Chastain v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
D.D.C. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1293 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972); IT&T v. General Tel. & Elec.
discussed Cited "see" Ungar v. Dunkin' Donuts of America, Inc.
E.D. Pa. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc., 144 U.S.App.D.C. 56 , 444 F.2d 931 (1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972) ; United States v. Chicago Tribune — New York News Syndicate, Inc., 309 F.Supp. 1301 (S.D.N.Y.1970). .
examined Cited "see" Dwen v. Barry (3×)
2d Cir. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Olff v. East Side Union High School District, 404 U.S. 1042 , 92 S.Ct. 703 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (Douglas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
examined Cited "see" Dwen v. Barry (3×)
2d Cir. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Olff v. East Side Union High School District, 404 U. S. 1042 , 92 S.Ct. 703 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (Douglas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). 9 An increasing number of courts have recognized the right of the individual to style his own appearance, but there has been little consensus on the source of constitutional protection.
examined Cited "see" Akridge v. Barres (3×)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally, Olff v. East Side Union High School District, 404 U.S. 1042 , 92 S.Ct. 703 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972); Comment, 84 Harv.
cited Cited "see" Hairston v. McLean Trucking Co.
M.D.N.C. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods Exploration & Producing Company v. Aluminum Company of America, 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" Minnich v. Nabuda (2×)
W.D. Pa. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Olff v. East Side Union High School District, 445 F.2d 932, 939 [9th Cir., 1971], cert. den. 1972, 404 U.S. -, 92 S.Ct. 703 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 . ■ Thus, we cannot find from the evidence in this case “a particular pattern of student conduct (which) is disruptive of the education process”, (see Gere, cit. supra, 453 F.2d p. 209), which justifies the regulation in question.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gilles v. Ware
D.C. · 1992 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1314-15 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972); Hill v. Wooten, 247 Ga. 737, 738 , 279 S.E.2d 227, 228 (1981); Silver v. Queen’s Hospital, 63 Haw. 430, 438 , 629 P.2d 1116, 1122 (1981); Blazer Corp. v. New Jersey Sports and Exposition Auth., 199 N.J.Super. 107, 109 , 488 A.2d 1025, 1027 (N.J.App.Div.1985); McCann v. Whitney, 25 N.Y.S.2d 354, 356 (Sup.Ct.1941); Lakewood, Ohio Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Inc. v. City of Lakewood, 20 Ohio App.3d 338, 341…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Garshman v. Universal Resources Holding Inc.
3rd Cir. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972) (owners of gas wells claimed that other producers violated antitrust laws by refusing to deal with them); MCI Communications Corp. v. A.T. & T.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Garshman v. Universal Resources Holding Inc., Inc.
3rd Cir. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972) (owners of gas wells claimed that other producers violated antitrust laws by refusing to deal with them); MCI Communications Corp. v. A.T. & T.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
8th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1304 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972) 10 The limiting instruction given to the jury more than once during the course of trial read: Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are going to hear evidence of a consent decree entered into by Hartz Mountain and the FTC.
cited Cited "see, e.g." General Industries Corp. v. Hartz Mountain Corp.
8th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1304 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Greenwood Utilities Commission v. Mississippi Power Company, Greenwood Utilities Commission v. Mississippi Power Company (2×)
5th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc., 444 F.2d 931, 940-42 (D.C.Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Poe v. Werner (6×)
M.D. Penn. · 1974 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Justice Douglas’ memorandum in Olff v. East Side Union High School District, 1972, 404 U.S. 1042 , 92 S.Ct. 703 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 , dissenting from the denial of certiorari and expressing the view school hair length regulations are clearly' unconstitutional. .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Seal v. Mertz (3×)
M.D. Penn. · 1972 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Olff v. East Side Union High School District, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1042 , 92 S.Ct. 703 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 . 2 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Joseph Edward Massie, Jr. v. Stanley Henry, Chairman of Board of Education of Haywood County, N. C. (6×)
4th Cir. · 1972 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, the opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas dissenting with regard to the denial of certiorari in Olff v. East Side Union High School District, 404 U.S. 1042 , 92 S.Ct. 703 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972).
Robert Olff, a Minor, by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Mrs. Sonny Olff
v.
East Side Union High School District
71-498.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 17, 1972.
404 U.S. 1042
1972 U.S. LEXIS 3969
Douglas.
Cited by 227 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

It seems incredible that under our federalism a State can deny, a student education in its public school system unless his hair style comports with the standards of the school board.

Some institutions in Asia require their enrollees to shave their heads. Would we sustain that regulation if imposed by a public school?

Would we sustain a public school regulation requiring male students to have crew cuts?

The present regulation — to some at least — seems as extreme as the examples given. It provides:

“Hair shall be trim and clean. A boy’s hair shall not fall below the eyes in front and shall not cover the ears, and it shall not extend below the collar in back.”

Robert Olff, a 15-year-old boy speaking through his mother, has a full panoply of constitutional rights, though he is a minor. We said in Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 511:

“Students in school as well as out of school are ‘persons’ under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.”

Moreover, a parent’s control over the child, though not absolute, as witness our decisions placing sanctions against child labor, is pervasive. We said in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166:

“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose[*1043] primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. . . . And it is in recognition of this that' these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.”

Hair style is highly personal, [1] an idiosyncrasy which I had assumed was left to family or individual control and was of no legitimate concern to the State. It seems to me to be as much a purely private choice as was the family-student decision, sustained against a .State’s prohibition, to study the German language in a public school. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390. That family-student right, the Court held, was included within “liberty” as the word is used in the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at 400. Opposed there — as in the present case — is the authoritarian philosophy favoring regimentation. The Court said:

“In order to submerge the individual and develop ideal citizens, Sparta assembled the males at seven into barracks and intrusted their subsequent education and training to official guardians. Although such measures have been deliberately approved by men of great genius, their ideas touching the rela[*1044] tion between individual and State were wholly different from those upon which our institutions rest; and it hardly will be affirmed that any legislature could impose such restrictions upon the people of a State without doing violence to both letter and spirit of the Constitution.” Id., at 402.

The word “liberty” is not defined in the Constitution. But, as we held in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, it includes at least the fundamental rights “retained by the people” under the Ninth Amendment. Id., at 484. One’s hair style, like one’s taste for food, or one’s liking for certain kinds of music, art, reading, recreation, is certainly fundamental in our constitutional scheme — a scheme designed to keep government off the backs of people. [2] That is not to say that the police power of the state is powerless to deal with known evils. An epidemic of lice might conceivably authorize a shearing of locks-. Other like crises might be imagined. But I see no way of allowing a State to set hair styles for patrons of its schools, any more than it could establish a welfare system only for men with crew cuts and women with bobbed[*1045] hair. [3] Once these lines are drawn, a serious question of equal protection of the law is raised. [4]

The federal courts are in conflict and the decisions in disarray. [5] We have denied certiorari where the lower[*1046] court has sustained the school board 6 and also where it has overruled the board. [7] The question tendered is of great personal concern to many and of unusual constitutional importance which we should resolve. I would grant this petition and set the case for argument.

1

Feelings run high among people concerning hair styles. Yet as Professor Chafee said:

“This breach of the peace theory is peculiarly liable to abuse when applied against unpopular expressions and practices. It makes a man a criminal simply because his neighbors have no self-control and cannot refrain from violence. The reductio ad absurdum of this theory was the imprisonment of Joseph Palmer, one of Bronson Alcott’s fellow-settlers at ‘Fruitlands/ not because he was a communist, but because he persisted in wearing such a long beard that people kept mobbing him, until law and order were maintained by shutting him up. A man does not become a criminal because some one else assaults him, unless his own conduct is in itself illegal or may be reasonably considered a direct provocation to violence.” Z. Chafee, Free Speech in the United States 151-152 (1942).
2

“This Court takes judicial notice that hairstyles have altered from time to time throughout the ages. Samson’s locks symbolically signified his virility. Many of the Founding Fathers of this country wore wigs. President Lincoln grew a beard at the suggestion of a juvenile female admirer. Chief Justice Hughes’ beard furnished the model for the frieze over the portico of the Supreme Court of the United States proclaiming ‘equal justice under law.’ Today many of both the younger and older generations have avoided the increased cost of barbering by allowing their locks or burnsides to grow to greater lengths than when a haircut cost a quarter of a dollar.

“Whether hair styles be regarded as evidence of conformity or of individuality, they are one of the most visible examples of personality. This is what every woman has always known. And so have many men, without the aid of an anthropologist, behavioral scientist, psychiatrist, or practitioner of any of the fine arts or black arts.” Richards v. Thurston, 304 F. Supp. 449, 451.

3

In the 1920’s the fad turned to short hair:

“To conservatives, short-haired women were as much ‘radicals and freaks of society’ as long-haired musicians, artists, and anarchists. Some saw in bobbed hair a symbol of all the ills of the age, ranging from jazz,, short skirts,, sexy movies, the automobile, and prohibition to such threats as ‘Freudian psychology’ and the ‘growing cult of the so-called free woman.’ The boyish bob, followed by the shingle and bingle which shaved the nape of the neck, and then by the curly bob and spit curls, were all part of what the older generation denounced as ‘Flaming Youth.’
“Preachers took to pulpits to warn that ‘a bobbed woman is a disgraced woman.’ In a Missouri courtroom, a mother pleading for the return of her six children who had been living with a guardian heard the oldest of them testify to the judge: ‘We don’t believe mother is a Christian woman. She bobs her hair.’ Men divorced their wives over bobbed hair. Other males banded together with vows to give up shaving until wives agreed to let their hair grow out again. A large department store fired all bobbed haired employees and a hospital discharged bobbed haired nurses.” W. Severn, The Long And Short of It 122 (1971).
4

In Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan, 12 Fed. Cas. 252, an alien Chinese was allowed to recover damages under the Civil Rights Act against the sheriff of San Francisco for cutting his hair “to an uniform length of one inch from the scalp” on entering a prison to serve a five-day sentence for a petty offense. The Circuit Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Field, held that the ordinance made an invidious discrimination against the Chinese (“only the dread of the loss of his queue will induce a Chinaman to pay his fine,” id., at 255) and was a cruel and unusual punishment. Ibid.

5

“Long hair” cases have occasioned a deep division in the circuits. There is a conflict as to the extent that a student’s interest in his hair style enjoys constitutional protection, compare Breen v. Kahl, 419 F. 2d 1034 (CA7 1969), and Richards v. Thurston, 424 F. 2d 1281 (CA1 1970), with Ferrell v. Dallas Ind. School Dist., 392 F. 2d 697 (CA5 1968), and Jackson v. Dorrier, 424 F. 2d 213 (CA6 1970). Where it has been found to exist, there is a split as to the constitutional basis for such protection. Compare Breen, supra, with[*1046] Richards, supra. And there is a conflict as to the showing necessary by the school board to justify a hair regulation even among those circuits permitting such a justification. Compare the decision of the Ninth Circuit in the present ease, and its companion, King v. Saddleback Jr. College Dist., 445 F. 2d 932 (1971), with Griffin v. Tatum, 425 F. 2d 201 (CA5 1970).

Not only is the conflict deep and irreconcilable, but the issue is a recurrent one. There are well over 50 reported cases squarely presenting the issue, students having won in about half of them. In addition to the 37 cases cited in Note, 84 Harv. L. Rev. 1702, 1703 n. 4 (1971), see, e. g., King v. Saddleback Jr. College Dist., supra; Valdes v. Monroe County Bd. of Public Instruction, 325 F. Supp. 572 (SD Fla. 1971); Axtell v. LaPenna, 323 F. Supp. 1077 (WD Pa. 1971); Parker v. Fry, 323 F. Supp. 728 (ED Ark. 1971); Alberda v. Noell, 322 F. Supp. 1379 (ED Mich. 1971); Lambert v. Marushi, 322 F. Supp. 326 (SD W. Va. 1971); Martin v. Davison, 322 F. Supp. 318 (WD Pa. 1971); Dawson v. Hillsborough County, Florida School Board, 322 F. Supp. 286 (MD Fla. 1971); Karr v. Schmidt, 320 F. Supp. 728 (WD Tex. 1970); Freeman v. Flake, 320 F. Supp. 531 (Utah 1970); Lansdale v. Tyler Jr. College, 318 F. Supp. 529 (ED Tex. 1970); Alexander v. Thompson, 313 F. Supp. 1389 (CD Cal. 1970).

6

See, e. g., Jackson v. Dorrier, supra, cert. denied, 400 U. S. 850.

7

See, e. g., Breen v. Kahl, supra, cert. denied, 398 U. S. 937.