202 F. Supp. 2d 972 - Corbett v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1931 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2202 · 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Reynolds v. Sims · Thornburg v. Gingles · Johnson v. De Grandy · Florida v. Tyvessel Tyvorus White · Shaw v. Reno
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although ostensibly the parties have asked me to redraw the lines, they really want me to choose among their competing redistricting plans. ... I find that it would be inappropriate for me to choose any of the plans proposed by the parties. Each has advantages and disadvantages .... Each of the parties' plans, however, has been shown to be a product of political or racial gerrymandering, at least to some extent, and they all consider many factors other than those referenced in the County Charter. Selecting any of them would be a political act, inappropriate for a judge to take. I conclude I must draw my own map in order to avoid making a decision based on politics. In doing so I should only consider the factors required by the United States and Missouri constitutions and those set out in the County Charter, so long as doing so does not run afoul of the Voting Rights Act. I have done this .... This plan considers only the three factors listed in the County Charter-equality, contiguity, and - compactness.... It does not consider the political consequences because that is not the proper role for a Court. Although this is certainly not the best way to make such important governmental decisions, where the political process has failed as spectacularly and repeatedly as it has in the St. Louis County Council redistricting process, this appears to be the only solution currently available.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Peterson v. Borst“opportunity to elect candidates of their choice”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“County Council Reapportionment Commission”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Peterson v. Borst
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.