Sipuel v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma

9 Citing cases

  1. Sipuel v. Board of Regents

    332 U.S. 631 (1948)   Cited 68 times
    In Sipuel, it was argued that the state had an insufficient opportunity to develop a separate law school for the plaintiff and that a court order admitting the plaintiff to the existing state law school would improperly foreclose the defendant's prerogative to choose which remedial option to pursue, in violation of the principles of federalism and comity.

    A Negro, concededly qualified to receive professional legal education offered by a State, cannot be denied such education because of her color. The State must provide such education for her in conformity with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and provide it as soon as it does for applicants of any other group. Pp. 632-633. 199 Okla. 36, 180 P.2d 135, reversed. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed a denial by an inferior state court of a writ of mandamus to require admission of a qualified Negro applicant to a state law school.

  2. McCready v. Byrd

    195 Md. 131 (Md. 1950)

    The writ of mandamus was refused, and the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma affirmed the judgment of the District Court. [ Sipuel v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, 199 Okla. 36], 180 P.2d 135. We brought the case here for review.

  3. Sipuel v. Bd. Regents of O.U

    190 P.2d 437 (Okla. 1948)   Cited 3 times

    Appeal from District Court, Cleveland County; Ben T. Williams, Judge. (Former Opinion April 29, 1947 — 199 Okla. 36, 180 P.2d 135.) Regents of Higher Education of the State of Oklahoma ordered and directed to proceed according to law.

  4. Faulkner v. Jones

    51 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 1995)   Cited 4 times
    In Faulkner v. Jones, 51 F.3d 440, 450 (4th Cir. 1995) (Faulkner II) (majority opinion), cert. dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 331, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (1995) (No. 95-31), the court directed the district court to "establish a timely but practicable schedule for South Carolina to formulate, adopt, and implement a plan that conforms with the Equal Protection Clause."

    In Sipuel, it was argued that the state had an insufficient opportunity to develop a separate law school for the plaintiff and that a court order admitting the plaintiff to the existing state law school would improperly foreclose the defendant's prerogative to choose which remedial option to pursue, in violation of the principles of federalism and comity. See Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 199 Okla. 36, 180 P.2d 135, 142 (1947), rev'd, 332 U.S. 631, 68 S.Ct. 299, 92 L.Ed. 247 (1948). The Supreme Court of Oklahoma was persuaded by this argument and refused to order the plaintiff admitted to the state law school, holding that to do so would wrongfully deny the defendant state "the right or option or opportunity to provide separate education in law for [plaintiff]."

  5. Wrighten v. Board of Trustees

    72 F. Supp. 948 (E.D.S.C. 1947)   Cited 2 times

    They relate not to the rights but to the remedies, and this being a cause of an equitable nature, the remedy is left somewhat to the sound discretion of the trial court, and in arriving at the same I have based it upon my own views of the rights, needs, exigencies, and equities in the instant case, guided and influenced by the experience and wisdom of other courts which have rendered opinions in similar matters. Gaines v. Canada, 344 Mo. 1238, 131 S.W.2d 217; Bluford v. Canada, D.C., 32 F. Supp. 707; Bluford v. Canada, 348 Mo. 298, 153 S.W.2d 14; Michael v. Witham, 179 Tenn. 250, 165 S.W.2d 378; Sipuel v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, 180 P.2d 135. See also University of Maryland v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, 182 A. 590, 103 A.L.R. 706.

  6. State v. Board of Control of Florida

    47 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1950)   Cited 24 times

    [ 305 U.S. 337, 59 S.Ct. 236.] See also Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U.S. 631, 68 S.Ct. 299, 92 L.Ed. 247, rev'g. 199 Okla. 36, 180 P.2d 135; and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed., D.C., 87 F. Supp. 526. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States from which we have quoted is binding upon this court in respect to the Federal constitutional question therein decided.

  7. State ex Rel. Toliver v. Board of Education

    360 Mo. 671 (Mo. 1950)   Cited 9 times

    ( 344 Mo. 1238, 131 S.W.2d 217.) See also Fisher v. Hurst, 333 U.S. 147, 92 L.Ed. 604, 68 S.Ct. 389, sustaining the action of the Oklahoma Court upon the reversal and remand of Sipuel v. University of Oklahoma, 199 Okla. 36, 180 P.2d 135, and consult, 199 Okla. 586, 190 P.2d 437. The constitutional requirements are fulfilled if substantial equality, not necessarily identity, of privileges be afforded the citizens, white or colored, where segregation of the races is provided for.

  8. Opinion No. 94-522

    Opinion No. 94-522 (1995) (Ops.Okla.Atty.Gen. Jan. 20, 1995)

    Indeed, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has specifically acknowledged that it is bound by the meaning of the Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 180 P.2d 135, 136 (Okla. 1947). The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause on numerous occasions.

  9. Opinion No. 92-505

    Opinion No. 92-505 (1992) (Ops.Okla.Atty.Gen. Nov. 13, 1992)

    (EMPHASIS ADDED). STATE V. BOARD OF CONTROL, 83 S.2D 20, 23 (FLA. 1955). THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZED ITS DUTY TO FOLLOW THE DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT INTERPRETING THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. IN SIPUEL V. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, 180 P.2D 135, 136 (OKLA. 1947), THE COURT, IN ITS THIRD SYLLABUS, DESCRIBED ITS DUTY UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE: IT IS THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S DUTY TO FOLLOW (THE) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF (THE) FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.