Sensley v. Albritton’s Empirical Analysis
385 F.3d 591 · 2004
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably 234 F. App'x 341 - Scott v. Metropolitan Health Corp. (2007), League of United Latin American Citizens v. City of Boerne (2011)
14 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 455 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · Thornburg v. Gingles · Bush v. Al Vera Lawson · Laird v. Tatum
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are only able to make this argument by layering several speculative premises on top of one another to reach a speculative conclusion: if District Attorney Levy loses this case, it might adversely affect his political popularity; and if it adversely affects his political popularity, he might lose his next election; and if he loses his next election, [the judge’s wife] might lose her job if the new district attorney chose not to retain her. This edifice of conjecture will not support an objective conclusion that [the district judge] has a financial interest in the outcome of this case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Courts have interpreted this statute to require recusal if a reasonable person, knowing all of the facts, would harbor doubts concerning the judge’s impartiality. Li ljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisi tion Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860-61 , 108 S.Ct. 2194 , 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988). In conducting this review, we must ask how these facts would appear to a “well-informed, thoughtful and objective observer, rather than the hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious person.” U.S. v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 156 (5th Cir.1995). Moreover, courts should be cautious and discriminating in reviewing recusal motions. As the Seventh Circuit has noted: A thoughtful observer understands that putting disqualification in the hands of a party, whose real fear may be that the judge will apply rather than disregard the law, could introduce a bias into adjudication. Thus the search is for a risk substantially out of the ordinary. In re Mason, 916 F.2d 384, 385-86 (7th Cir.1990), cited with approval in Jordan, 49 F.3d at 156 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, plaintiffs must satisfy, as a threshold matter, three preconditions. Specifically, the minority group must demonstrate that: (1) it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a[n additional] single-member district; (2) it is politically cohesive; and (3) the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it — in the absence of special circumstances — usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidates. Failure to establish all three of these elements defeats a [§ 2] claim. Second, if the preconditions are proved, plaintiffs must then prove that based on the totality of the circumstances, they have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”
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.