Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 402 U.S. 690 - Connor v. Johnson

Connor v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

374
cited by 374 later decisions
48
cited 48 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

92 federal appellate · 36 district · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 374 later decisions (48 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall (1976), Mahan v. Howell (1973)

92 federal appellate · 36 district · 27 state decisions

2380197119801990200020102020decided

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. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)

Relies on Burns v. Richardson · Fortson v. Dorsey · Morton Salt Co. v. United States · Connor v. Johnson

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

  1. “when district courts are forced to fashion apportionment plans, single-member districts are preferable to large multi-member districts as a general matter.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] reapportionment plan formulated and ordered by a federal district court need not be approved by the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Under our constitutional system it would be strange indeed to construe § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ... to require that actions of a federal court be stayed and reviewed by the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “absent insurmountable difficulties, to devise and put into effect a single-member district plan for Hinds County.”
    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.