Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 243 FSUPP 873 - Buckley v. Hoff

Buckley v. Hoff’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
July 2009
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2009

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

8019651970198019902000decided

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 Reynolds v. Sims · Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado · Fortson v. Dorsey · Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes · 238 F. Supp. 916 - WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “And careful judicial scrutiny must of course be given, in evaluating state apportionment schemes, to the character as well as the degree of deviations from a strict population basis. But if, even as a result of a clearly rational state policy of according some legislative representation to political subdivisions, population is submerged as the controlling consideration in the apportionment of seats in the particular legislative body, then the right of all of the State's citizens to cast an effective and adequately weighted vote would be unconstitutionally impaired.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]n particular cases the selection of * * * registered voters may violate the Equal Protection Clause, if it evidences an attempt to perpetuate prior malapportionment * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “no evidence that the selection of registered voters as a base for apportionment * * * has the effect of perpetuating existing discrimination * * *.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.