Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 139 F.3d 1414 - Davis v. Chiles

Davis v. Chiles’s Empirical Analysis

139 F.3d 1414 · 1998

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
July 2024
most recently cited

17 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Burton v. City of Belle Glade (1999), Bradley v. Work (1998)

17 federal appellate ·

1301998200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)

Relies on Thornburg v. Gingles · Shaw v. Reno · Miller v. Johnson · Chisom v. Roemer · Bush v. Al Vera Lawson

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[e]lections of minority candidates during the pendency of Section Two litigation ... have little probative value.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[A] court must apply strict scrutiny to predominately race-based redistricting or reapportionment plans. In order to determine whether race is the predominant factor underlying a particular district’s design, a court must find that a district-drawer has subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles (such as geographical compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions) to race. A court may base such a finding either on circumstantial evidence regarding a district’s shape and demographics or on direct evidence of a district-drawer’s purpose.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “abolish a particular form of government and ... use its imagination to fashion a new system. Nothing in the Voting Rights Act suggests an intent on the part of Congress to permit the federal judiciary to force on the states a new model of government; moreover, from a pragmatic standpoint, federal courts simply lack legal standards for choosing among alternatives.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.