James v. Valtierra’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
150 federal appellate · 37 district · 97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 423 later decisions (42 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably Buckley v. Valeo (1976), Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977)
150 federal appellate · 37 district · 97 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 42 U.S.C. § 1401
Relies on Douglas v. People of State of California · Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections Butts · Gomillion v. Lightfoot · McDonald v. Board of Election Comm'rs of Chicago · Hunter v. Erickson
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 423 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] lawmaking procedure that 'disadvantages' a particular group does not always deny equal protection. Under any such holding, presumably a State would not be able to require referendums on any subject unless referendums were required on all, because they would always disadvantage some group.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“California's entire history demonstrates the repeated use of referendums to give citizens a voice on questions of public policy.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Unlike the case before us, Hunter rested on the conclusion that Akron’s referendum law denied equal protection by placing “special burdens on racial minorities within the governmental process.” ... Unlike the Akron referendum provision, it cannot be said that California’s Article XXXIV rests on “distinctions based on race.” ... The present case could be affirmed only by extending Hunter , and this we decline to do.”
3 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.