Petuskey v. Rampton’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 1983
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 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 Baker v. Carr · Reynolds v. Sims · Gomillion v. Lightfoot · Bain Peanut Co. v. Pinson · Petuskey v. Clyde
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““10. It is interesting to note the speed by which the last State Legislature memoralized Congress (S.J.R. #5) to call a constitutional convention to provide for reapportionment ‘on factors other than population’, which resolutions the State Senate passed on the tenth day of the session, compared to the Legislature’s hesitancy to properly reapportion under the mandate of this court, which action occurred on the final (sixtieth) day of the session.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“... once a State's legislative apportionment scheme has been found to be unconstitutional, it would be the unusual case in which a court would be justified in not taking appropriate action to insure that no further elections are conducted under the invalid plan.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Again we stated: The Governor may or may not call a special session, and may or may not place apportionment upon its agenda. Having regard to the long period of time during which all efforts to obtain a constitutionally apportioned Legislature have been frustrated in this State, and to the further unfortunate delay until January 1967 before we shall have a constitutionally apportioned Legislature, well-known general principles of equity require that the Legislature not consider or vote upon any proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States on the subject of legislative reapportionment, and require that the Legislature not take any action on the subject of legislative apportionment except to stagger the terms of senators to provide continuity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Petuskey v. Rampton
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.