Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 335 FSUPP 928 - Holshouser v. Scott

Holshouser v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2016 · most notably Republican Party of North Carolina v. Martin (1992), Wells v. Edwards (1973)

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

8019711980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Baker v. Carr · Reynolds v. Sims · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Wesberry v. Sanders · Smith v. Allwright

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

  1. “); Holshouser v. Scott, 335 F.Supp. 928 (D.D.C.1971) (“We hold that the one man, one vote rule does not apply to state judiciary____”); Buchanan v. Rhodes, 249 F.Supp. 860 (N.D.Ohio 1966) (”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"[T]he one man-one vote doctrine, applicable as it now is to selection of legislative and executive officials, does not extend to the judiciary. Manifestly, judges and prosecutors are not representatives in the same sense as are legislators or the executive. Their function is to administer the law, not to espouse the cause of a particular constituency. Moreover there is no way to harmonize selection of these officials on a pure population standard with the diversity in type and number of cases which will arise in various localities, or with the varying abilities of judges and prosecutors to dispatch the business of the courts. An effort to apply a population standard to the judiciary would, in the end, fall of its own weight."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “find no case where the Supreme Court, a Circuit Court, or a District Court has applied the `one man, one vote' principle or rule to the judiciary.”
    2 later decisions 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.