Perez v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 52 U.S.C. § 10301 · 52 U.S.C. § 10302
Relies on Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · Washington v. Davis · Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney · Thornburg v. Gingles
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a Legislature could ... insulate itself from a Shaw -type challenge simply by re-enacting its plan and claiming that it made no decisions about who to include in the district at the time of re-enactment”
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.