Stephenson v. Bartlett’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp. (2004), Tillman v. Commercial Credit Loans, Inc. (2008)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 58 state decisions
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 2 U.S.C. § 2C · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Baker v. Carr · Reynolds v. Sims · William Marbury v. James Madison · Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul · Thornburg v. Gingles
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1.] ... [T]o ensure full compliance with federal law, legislative districts required by the VRA shall be formed prior to creation of non-VRA districts.... In the formation of VRA districts within the revised redistricting plans on remand, we likewise direct the trial court to ensure that VRA districts are formed consistent with federal law and in a manner having no retrogressive effect upon minority voters. To the maximum extent practicable, such VRA districts shall also comply with the legal requirements of the WCP, as herein established .... [2.] In forming new legislative districts, any deviation from the ideal population for a legislative district shall be at or within plus or minus five percent for purposes of compliance with federal "one-person, one-vote" requirements. [3.] In counties having a 2000 census population sufficient to support the formation of one non-VRA legislative district..., the WCP requires that the physical boundaries of any such non-VRA legislative district not cross or traverse the exterior geographic line of any such county. [4.] When two or more non-VRA legislative districts may be created within a single county, ... single-member non-VRA districts shall be formed within said county. Such non-VRA districts shall be compact and shall not traverse the exterior geographic boundary of any such county. [5.] In counties having a non-VRA population pool which cannot support at least one legislative district ... or, alternatively, counties having a non-V”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen established, the [House and] [S]enate districts and the apportionment of [Representatives and] Senators shall remain unaltered until the return of another decennial census of population taken by order of Congress.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he plaintiff’s burden is to show, either through circumstantial evidence of a district’s shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose, that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district. To make this showing, a plaintiff must prove that the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles, including but not limited to compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared interests, to racial considerations. Where these or other race-neutral considerations are the basis for redistricting legislation, and are not subordinated to race, a State can “defeat a claim that a district has been gerrymandered on racial lines.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dickson v. Rucho · Dickson v. Rucho
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.