Sharrow v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “For instance, to establish standing in the present case, Sharrow would have to show, at least approximately, the apportionment his interpretation of [section 2 of the fourteenth amendment] would yield, not only for New York but for every other State as well. This would necessitate a state-by-state study of the disenfranchisement of adult males, a task of great proportions. And even after approximate nation-wide reapportionment figures were derived, it might well be that, because of population shifts, or because New York itself disenfranchised a portion of its adult males, New York’s representation would not be increased as Sharrow claims. [The plaintiff’s] sincere effort, an effort which we respect, to rectify what he considers a grave constitutional mistake is not enough. He must establish that the failure to enforce [section 2 of the fourteenth amendment] has resulted in a detriment to his rights of representation in Congress and this he has failed to do.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 486 F. Supp. 564 - Federation for American Immigration Reform v. Klutznick · 443 F. Supp. 321 - Sharrow v. Peyser

2. “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 486 F. Supp. 564 - Federation for American Immigration Reform v. Klutznick · 501 F. Supp. 202 - Sharrow v. Fish