Dyer v. Love’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 17 U.S.C. § 116 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 35 U.S.C. § 285 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Reynolds v. Sims · Sprage v. Ticonic Nat Bank · Allen v. State Board of Elections · Avery v. Midland County · Fortson v. Dorsey
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.
““Thus, the 1966 and 1968 amendments to § 2870 may not be implemented and are not presently in force. The defendants, as members of the board of supervisors of the county, do not have statutory power or authority to provide for or order at-large elections of its members.” 1 The court also held in Dyer that: “Mississippi law invests boards of supervisors with the authority to change or alter the districts of the county. § 2870 Mississippi Code, 1942, Annotated. It is the opinion of the Court that defendant board should be required to change and/or alter the districts of the county, in such manner as will provide equality of population among the districts as of the present time.” 2”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.