Ralpho v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973B (§ 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 50 U.S.C. App. § 2020
Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Weinberger v. Salfi · Leedom v. Kyne · Johnson v. Robison · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Lurk
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id. We think such a distinction is crucial. Cf. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 , 109, 97 S.Ct. 980, 986, 51 L.Ed.2d 192, 202 (1977); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 , 762, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 2465, 45 L.Ed.2d 522, 537 (1975) (Johnson”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ralpho v. Bell“the extremely significant interests represented by claims of racial discrimination,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ralpho v. Bell“that procedural due process issues may not be withdrawn from judicial review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ralpho v. Bell
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.