Smith v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Thornburg v. Gingles · Wesberry v. Sanders · Voinovich v. Quilter · 103 S. Ct. 247 - Beneficial Finance of Kansas, Inc. v. United States · Growe v. Emison
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For the reasons stated in our opinions of February 19, 2002, and February 26, 2002, the defendants are hereby enjoined from implementing the congressional redistricting plan adopted by the Chancery Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi. It is further ordered that the defendants are enjoined from implementing the former five district congressional redistricting plan codified at Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-1037. It is further ordered that the defendants implement the congressional redistricting plan adopted by this court in its order of February 4, 2002, for conducting congressional primary and general elections for the State of Mississippi in 2002. It is further ordered that the defendants shall use the congressional redistricting plan adopted by this court in its order of February 4, 2002, in all succeeding congressional primary and general elections for the State of Mississippi thereafter, until the State of Mississippi produces a constitutional congressional redistricting plan that is precleared in accordance with the procedures in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This court shall retain jurisdiction to implement, enforce, and amend this order as shall be necessary and just.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Smith v. Hosemann“To the extent possible, consistent with the constitutional and statutory requirements, federal redistricting courts attempt to preserve local political boundaries-city and county lines,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Thomas v. Bryant“it would be inappropriate for the Attorney General to make a determination concerning [the State's preclearance] submission now”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Branch v. Smith
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.