Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 332 FSUPP2D 982 - Nader v. Connor

Nader v. Connor’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2024

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

50200420102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · Williams v. Rhodes · Anderson v. Celebrezze

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

  1. “The independent candidate ballot-access requirements preserve the integrity of the electoral process and regulate[ ] the number of independent candidates on the ballot by ensuring that (1) the electorate is enough aware of the candidate either to know his views or to learn and approve of them in a short period, and (2) that at least a minimum of registered voters are willing to take him and his views seriously. These justifications advanced by the State of Texas for the signature and date requirements are sufficient under the standard announced in Anderson and Burdick. Therefore,, the Court concludes that the requirements of the Texas Election Code for ballot access by an independent presidential candidate are reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and constitutional as based upon [ ] Texas’s important regulatory interests.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.