Citation network
Gratz Vs. Bollinger
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 2003
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 244 (2003) October Term, 2002 Syllabus Gratz Et Al. V. BollingerSearch
-
judgment, respondents relied on Justice Powell's principal opinion in Regents of 245 Univ. of Cal. v. BakkeSearch
-
those years. While interlocutory appeals were pending in the Sixth Circuit, that court issued an opinion in Grutter v. BollingerSearch
-
not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit. Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. JacksonvilleSearch
-
justifying its consideration of the race of its undergraduate applicants. See General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
District Court's carefully considered decision to certify this class action is correct. Cf. Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySearch
-
asserted interest in diversity, the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause. For the reasons set forth in Grutter v. BollingerSearch
-
See, e. g., Alexander v. SandovalSearch
-
General Building Contractors Assn. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
of Vermont, Iver A. Stridiron of the Virgin Islands, Christine Q Gregoire of Washington, Darrell V. McGrawSearch
-
and Carl v. AngelisSearch
-
Court originally denied this request, see id., at 14-15, but the Sixth Circuit reversed that decision. See Gratz v. BollingerSearch
-
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Respondents relied on Justice Powell's opinion in Regents of Univ. of Gal. v. BakkeSearch
-
to respond to petitioners' arguments. As discussed in greater detail in the Court's opinion in Grutter v. BollingerSearch
-
aspects of the District Court's rulings, and the Court of Appeals heard the case en banc on the same day as Grutter v. BollingerSearch
-
It is well established that intent may be relevant to standing in an equal protection challenge. In Clements v. FashSearch
-
accord, Turner v. FoucheSearch
-
Likewise, in Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. JacksonvilleSearch
-
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The parties have not briefed the question of standing v. adequacySearch
-
General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSearch
-
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), and designated Hamacher as the class representative. App. 70. JUSTICE STEVENS cites Blum v. YaretskySearch
-
the respect that 267 Particularly instructive here is our statement in General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSearch
-
U. S. 682 , 701 (1979). This case was therefore quite unlike General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSearch
-
cf. Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySearch
-
Id., at 17-18, 40-41. But for the reasons set forth today in Grutter v. BollingerSearch
-
which is a principal purpose of the procedure.''' Id., at 159 (quoting American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. UtahSearch
-
Regents of Univ. of Gal. v. BakkeSearch
-
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. PenaSearch
-
a most searching examination.''' Adarand, supra, at 223 (quoting Wygant v. JacksonSearch
-
and identifiable contribution to a university's diversity. See id., at 315. See also Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCCSearch
-
render constitutional an otherwise problematic system. See J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S., at 508 (citing Frontiero v. RichardsonSearch
-
remarkable for two reasons. First, they suggest that universities-to whose academic judgment we are told in Grutter v. BollingerSearch
-
I Unlike the law school admissions policy the Court upholds today in Grutter v. BollingerSearch
-
Admissions do not provide for a meaningful individualized review of applicants. Cf. Regents of Univ. of Gal. v. BakkeSearch
-
considers the various diversity qualifications of each applicant, including race, on a case-bycase basis. See Grutter v. BollingerSearch
-
committed by an institution that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI. See Alexander v. SandovalSearch
-
Mc Donald v. SantaSearch
-
See Runyon v. McCrarySearch
-
See General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
with respect to the contributions each applicant is likely to make to the diversity of the incoming class. See Grutter v. BollingerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial