Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Missouri Vs. Jenkins

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 18, 1990

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

72 entries 4 linked 68 unlinked
Show
  1. Reynolds Vs. Sims US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  2. Graham Vs. Folsom US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1906
  3. City of Galena Vs. Amy US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1866
  4. U.S. 33 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Missouri v. Jenkins
    Search
  5. U.S. 33 (1990) Missouri v. Jenkins
    Search
  6. did not abuse its discretion in ruling that KCMSD should be responsible for funding its share of the remedy. Milliken v. Bradley
    Search
  7. III. A court can direct a local government body to levy Page 495 U. S. 36 its own taxes. See, e.g., Griffin v. Prince
    Search
  8. that requires local governments to do more than exercise the power that is theirs has been rejected, Von Hoffman v. City
    Search
  9. The District Court realigned KCMSD as a party defendant, School Dist. of Kansas City v. Missouri
    Search
  10. the District Court found that KCMSD and the State had operated a segregated school system within the KCMSD. Jenkins v. Missouri
    Search
  11. necessary to eliminate the vestiges of segregation and the financing necessary to implement those remedies. Jenkins v. Missouri
    Search
  12. for an increase in taxes sufficient to pay for its share of the desegregation remedy in following years. Jenkins v. Missouri
    Search
  13. the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's findings of liability and remedial order in most respects. Jenkins v. Missouri
    Search
  14. cost equally between the State and KCMSD. Id. at 685. We denied certiorari. Kansas City, Missouri, School Dist. v. Missouri
    Search
  15. Jenkins v. Missouri
    Search
  16. by the doctrine of comparative fault in tort, which had been adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court in Gustafson v. Benda
    Search
  17. id. at 412 (quoting Griffin v. Prince
    Search
  18. lacks the judicial power to order a tax increase. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that Griffin v. Prince
    Search
  19. the entry of the Court of Appeals' judgment, we must dismiss the petition. Since Department of Banking of Nebraska v. Pink
    Search
  20. to be reviewed. Cf. Zimmern v. United
    Search
  21. Leishman v. Associated
    Search
  22. a suggestion for rehearing in banc, even without the order contemplated by Rule 41(a), and point us to United States v. Samuels
    Search
  23. court granted rehearing or amended its order solely for the purpose of extending that time. Cf. Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois
    Search
  24. Conboy v. First
    Search
  25. Credit Co. v. Arkansas
    Search
  26. how styled, as containing both petitions for panel rehearing and suggestions for rehearing in banc. Cf. Gonzalez v. Southern
    Search
  27. for solutions to the problems of segregation upon those who have themselves created the problems. As Brown v. Board
    Search
  28. the problems of desegregation. See also Milliken v. Bradley
    Search
  29. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
    Search
  30. U. S. 1 , 411 U. S. 42 (1973) (quoting Jefferson v. Hackney
    Search
  31. U. S. 546 -547 (1972)). By no means should a district court grant local government carte blanche, cf. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
    Search
  32. least have the opportunity to devise their own solutions to these problems. Cf. Sixty-Seventh Minnesota State Senate v. Beens
    Search
  33. not have allowed the tax increase to stand, and should have reversed the District Court in this respect. See Langnes v. Green
    Search
  34. approving or disapproving, the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the District Court's remedy was proper. See Cone v. West
    Search
  35. have been delayed if the State resisted efforts by KCMSD to obtain contribution. It is true that, in Milliken v. Bradley
    Search
  36. the remedy if it can, and apportionment of the cost is part of the equitable power of the District Court. Cf. Milliken v. Bradley
    Search
  37. Pennsylvania v. Union
    Search
  38. court to disestablish local government institutions that interfere with its commands. Cf. New York City Bd of Estimate v. Morris
    Search
  39. body to levy its own taxes is plainly a judicial act within the power of a federal court. We held as much in Griffin v. Prince
    Search
  40. governmental bodies to levy taxes adequate to satisfy their debt obligations. See, e.g., Louisiana ex rel. Hubert v. Mayor
    Search
  41. Wolff v. New
    Search
  42. United States v. New
    Search
  43. Heine v. Levee
    Search
  44. Von Hoffman v. City
    Search
  45. We disagree. This argument was rejected as early as Von Hoffman v. City
    Search
  46. North Carolina State Bd of Education v. Swann
    Search
  47. This litigation has come to us once before, on the collateral issue of attorney's fees. Missouri v. Jenkins
    Search
  48. and child development programs. The cost of these remedies was to be borne equally by the State and KCMSD. Jenkins v. Missouri
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Missouri v. Jenkins
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial