Vieth v. Pennsylvania’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Ex Parte: Edward T Young
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We begin our analysis [of the effects prong] by stating that the recondite standard enunciated in Bandemer offers little concrete guidance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“both intentional discrimination against an identifiable political group and an actual discriminatory effect on that group,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vieth v. Jubelirer“is necessarily somewhat different from that involved in the review of individual districts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vieth v. Jubelirer
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.