Stephenson v. Bartlett’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2020
1 district · 1 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1443 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Growe v. Emison · Chapman v. Meier
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint only raises issues of state law. It is defendants’ defense under the Voting Rights Act, namely that they cannot comply with the state constitution because of its effect on the voting rights of specified constituent groups, that arguably raises a federal issue. As the Supreme Court has made clear, however, defendants “cannot, merely by injecting a federal question into an action that asserts what is plainly a state-law claim, transform the action into one arising under federal law.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 399 , 107 S.Ct. 2425 , 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). To allow removal in this case would give defendants the power to select the forum in which the claim is litigated.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“plaintiffs are merely 'seeking an alternative apportionment plan which also fully complie[s] with federal law but varie[s] from the defendants' plan only in its interpretation of state law.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hat is essentially a state law claim cannot be transformed into a federal one by the mere assertion, either anticipated by plaintiffs or raised by defendants, of a federal defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.