Upham v. Seamon’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 42 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 435 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably Karcher v. Daggett (1983), Abrams v. Johnson (1997)
74 federal appellate · 42 district · 19 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 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Wesberry v. Sanders · Whitcomb v. Chavis · Chapman v. Meier · Connor v. Finch · White v. Weiser
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 435 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In fashioning a reapportionment plan or in choosing among plans, a district court should not pre-empt the legislative task nor 'intrude upon state policy any more than necessary.'”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Buskey v. Oliver · Smith v. Clark“[a]n appropriate reconciliation of these two goals can only be achieved if the District Court's modifications of a state plan are limited to those necessary to cure any constitutional or statutory defect.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“elections to be held pursuant to apportionment plans that do not in all respects measure up to the legal requirements, even constitutional requirements. See, e.g., Bullock v. Weiser, 404 U.S. 1065 [ 92 S.Ct. 750 , 30 L.Ed.2d 752 ] (1972); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 396 U.S. 1055 [ 90 S.Ct. 748 , 24 L.Ed.2d 757 ] (1970). Necessity has been the motivating factor in these situations.”
5 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.