Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 332 F.2d 759 - United States v. Duke

United States v. Duke’s Empirical Analysis

332 F.2d 759 · 1964

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966), Louisiana v. United States (1965)

40 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

380196419701980199020002010decided

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 Lane v. Wilson · Guinn v. United States · Alabama v. United States · United States of America Ex Rel. Robert Lee Goldsby v. William Harpole, Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary, Parchman, Mississippi · United States v. Lynd

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

  1. “[W]ith respect to all Negro residents of Panola County who are otherwise qualified by residence and not disqualified by any of the statutory grounds of disqualification, they must be given an opportunity to register upon their subjecting themselves to the same requirements as were actually administered by defendant Duke and his deputies up until the date of the trial of this case in the district court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “The cessation of prior discriminatory practices cannot justify the imposition of new and onerous requirements, theoretically applicable to all, but practically affecting primarily those who bore the brunt of previous discrimination. An appropriate remedy * * * should undo the results of past discrimination as well as prevent future inequality of treatment. A court of equity is not powerless to eradicate the effects of former discrimination. If it were, the State could seal into permanent existence the injustices of the past. 225 F.Supp. at 393 . (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. ““The only effective relief here is by applying the principle of freezing the registration standards that were in effect when the great majority of the white citizens were registered. * * * [T]he disenfranchised class must be given a reasonable opportunity to get their names on the registration rolls on the same basis as was applied to the 5300 white voters who are now registered in Panola County.””
    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.