Lipscomb v. Wise’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1996
12 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 1911 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Pierson v. Ray · Reynolds v. Sims · Gomillion v. Lightfoot · White v. Regester
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Court finds that Mexican-American citizens of Dallas have suffered some restrictions of access to the political processes within the city but that this restriction does not amount to dilution. 399 F.Supp. at 793 . I conclude that Mexican-American citizens do not suffer from present dilution of their voting strength, and in fact, ben efit to a significant extent from at-large voting. 399 F.Supp. at 793 . Mexican-Americans have entered to some extent into the political life of Dallas through the present at-large system. At-large voting may operate in part as a restriction of access for Mexican-Americans as it has been for blacks. At the same time however, it is clear that at-large voting offers features which allow greater participation in the political processes within Dallas for Mexican-American voters [which] would be unavailable in an exclusive single-member district voting plan.” 399 F.Supp. at 794 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lipscomb v. Wise““I conclude that Mexican-American citizens do not suffer from present dilution of their voting strength, and in fact, benefit to a significant extent from at-large voting. . . . The Court finds that an exclusive single-member district plan would do nothing to increase the opportunity for Mexican-American participation in the political life of Dallas and might tend to decrease it. . . . [I]t is clear that at-large voting offers features which allow greater participation in the political processes within Dallas for Mexican-American voters [which] would be unavailable in an exclusive single-member district voting plan. . . . Mexican-American citizens will, under the eight/three plan, have a heretofore unavailable flexibility and greater opportunity to participate in the political life of Dallas.” 399 F.Supp. at 793-94 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lipscomb v. Wise“The Court believes and so finds that there is a legitimate governmental interest to be served by having some at-large representation on the Dallas City Council; that this governmental interest is the need for a city-wide view on those matters which concern the city as a whole, e. g., zoning, budgets, and city planning; and that three at-large members do not render the city's plan constitutionally infirm.”
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.