Parker v. Ohio’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973A (§ 3 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Thornburg v. Gingles · City of Mobile v. Bolden · Johnson v. De Grandy · United States v. Hays
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“elect their candidate of choice nonetheless if they are numerous enough and their candidate attracts sufficient cross-over votes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Metts v. Almond“the Gingles factors cannot be applied mechanically and without regard to the nature of the claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Metts v. Almond
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.