Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 377 F.2d 61 - Paynes v. Lee

Paynes v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

377 F.2d 61 · 1967

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
April 2019
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Smith v. Local No. 25, Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n (1974), Kimble v. D. J. McDuffy, Inc. (1981)

22 federal appellate · 3 district ·

270196719701980199020002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 594 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1971 (Civil Rights Act of 1957) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on United States v. Classic · 'The Ku-Klux Cases' Yarbrough · Collins v. Hardyman · Ker v. California · United States v. Williams

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

  1. “* * * * * (3) If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privilegeg'-and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted aiShomíés of any SfaUg~or Territory fronTlrivíñgor securing to~Ul persons within such State or Territory the eqi^Uprotecthm~orThe_iawsj or"if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or m lavor of the election oiTany lawfully qualified person as an elector for ’UfesúfeflUgr VtSe3Sresir dent, or as a “Member ~óf Cqugress-of-t.be United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any ease of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. R.S. § 1980.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * Federal voting rights * * * may be protected from individual as well as from State interference. * * * The protected right includes the right to be free from bodily injury in the exercise of the right of franchise. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 , 4 S.Ct. 152 , 28 L.Ed. 274 . The right to be free from threatened harm and the right to be protected from violence for an attempted exercise of a voting right are no less protected than the right to cast a ballot on the day of election.” (Citations omitted.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ * * * or if two- or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy * * * ””
    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.