United States v. Sharrow’s Empirical Analysis
309 F.2d 77 · 1962
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 1981
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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
Applies 13 U.S.C. § 141 · 13 U.S.C. § 221 · 13 U.S.C. § 5
Relies on Baker v. Carr · Shew v. United States · Green v. Oklahoma · Saunders v. Wilkins
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Irrespective of the Fourteenth Amendment’s mandate the Congress, in the present state of the law, is not required to prescribe that census-takers ascertain information relative to disfranchisement. Cf. United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 890-891 (S.D.N.Y.1901). * * * We hold that there was nothing unconstitutional in the omission from the census form of a question relating to disfranchisement.” 9”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) The Secretary shall, in the year 1960 and every ten years thereafter, take a census of population, unemployment, and housing (including utilities and equipment) as of the first day of April, which shall be known as the census date. “(b) The tabulation of total population by States as required for the apportionment of Representatives shall be completed within eight months of the census date and reported by the Secretary to the President of the United States.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sharrow v. Brown
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.