George Wood v. Bruce Meadows’s Empirical Analysis
207 F.3d 708 · 2000
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Lawrence v. Blackwell (2005), Maryland Green Party v. Maryland Board of Elections (2003)
7 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Williams v. Rhodes · Anderson v. Celebrezze · Storer v. Brown · Bullock v. Carter · Burdick v. Takushi
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Administrative convenience readily falls under the rubric of a state's `regulatory interests,' the importance of which the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[A court] must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. It must then identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests, it also must consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiffs rights. [Anderson,] 460 U.S. at 789 , 103 S.Ct. 1564 . Even prior to articulating this test, the Court expressly recognized that “reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions” generally can be justified by “the State’s important regulatory interests.” If a filing deadline inflicts a “severe” burden, however, it must be “narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barr v. Ireland“States are not burdened with a constitutional imperative to reduce voter apathy or to `handicap' an unpopular candidate to increase the likelihood that the candidate will gain access to the general election ballot.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.