Citation network
Bradley Vs. School Bd. of Richmond
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 15, 1974
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Bradley v. SchoolSearch
-
Bd. of Richmond - 416 U.S. 696 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Bradley v. SchoolSearch
-
Bd. of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696 (1974) Bradley v. SchoolSearch
-
to January 29, 1971. On March 10, 1970, petitioners had moved in the District Court for additional relief under Green v. CountySearch
-
Newman v. PiggieSearch
-
S. 710 -724. (a) An appellate court must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, Thorpe v. HousingSearch
-
United States v. SchoonerSearch
-
their claim that a racially based faculty allocation system rendered the plan constitutionally inadequate under Brown v. BoardSearch
-
Id. at 23a. This plan was in operation about four years. While it was in effect, Green v. CountySearch
-
Court a motion for further relief in the light of the opinions of this Court in Green, supra, in Alexander v. HolmesSearch
-
County Board of Education, 396 U. S. 19 (1969), and in Carter v. WestSearch
-
in fixing school zone lines or to use transportation as a desegregation tool, despite the decision in Swann v. Charlotte-MecklenburgSearch
-
S. 1 (1971), and (c) with its failure to consider racial factors in zoning, despite the approval thereof in Warner v. CountySearch
-
After argument, the Court of Appeals' judgment was affirmed by an equally divided Court. Richmond School Board v. BoardSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
s interests in a nondiscriminatory public school system. Reasoning from this Court's per curiam decision in Newman v. PiggieSearch
-
particularly in the light of uncertainties existing prior to this Court's then impending decision in Swann v. Charlotte-MecklenburgSearch
-
c)(1), 86 Stat. 236, were compensable under that statute. Thompson v. SchoolSearch
-
did not sustain the allowance of counsel fees. III In Northcross v. BoardSearch
-
on the other hand. Linkletter v. WalkerSearch
-
The origin and the justification for this rule are found in the words of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in United States v. SchoonerSearch
-
Page 416 U. S. 714 Ultimately, in Thorpe v. HousingSearch
-
order and it had been affirmed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, Housing Authority of the City of Durham v. ThorpeSearch
-
citing Greene v. UnitedSearch
-
Brown v. BoardSearch
-
that to do so would infringe upon or deprive a person of a right that had matured or become unconditional. See Greene v. UnitedSearch
-
Union Pacific R. Co. v. LaramieSearch
-
results in spreading the cost the litigant has incurred among those who have benefited by his efforts. See Trustees v. GreenoughSearch
-
Sprague v. TiconicSearch
-
felt, however, that there were other grounds on which an award of counsel fees could be based. It referred to Mills v. ElectricSearch
-
U.S. at 396 U. S. 392 . See also Hall v. ColeSearch
-
See Brewer v. SchoolSearch
-
Nesbit v. StatesvilleSearch
-
Williams v. KimbroughSearch
-
Rolfe v. CountySearch
-
Clark v. BoardSearch
-
Griffin v. CountySearch
-
Bell v. SchoolSearch
-
has been exhausted or has lapsed, and the time to petition for certiorari has passed. Linkletter v. WalkerSearch
-
In Chicot County Drainage District v. BaxterSearch
-
In United States v. ChambersSearch
-
in view of the interim ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, absent inclusion of a saving clause. In Carpenter v. WabashSearch
-
explicitly that it was applicable to railroad receiverships then pending in any United States court. In Vandenbark v. Owens-IllinoisSearch
-
decision changing the applicable state law subsequent to the decision in the federal trial court. In Ziffrin, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 318 U. S. 78 . In United States v. AlabamaSearch
-
of the legislative history, and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the action. See also Freeborn v. SmithSearch
-
Moores v. NationalSearch
-
Stephens v. CherokeeSearch
-
Dinsmore v. SouthernSearch
-
Watts, Watts & Co. v. UnioneSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial