Hubbard v. Ammerman’s Empirical Analysis
465 F.2d 1169 · 1972
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Griffin v. Burns (1978), Duncan v. Poythress (1981)
14 federal appellate · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1344 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Smith v. Allwright · Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. · Smiley v. Holm · Roudebush v. Hartke · Bell v. Southwell
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“power to control the disposition of contests over elections to ... state and local offices”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n the absence of a statute to the contrary, none but a candidate claiming to have been injured by illegalities therein occurring can contest the certified results of an election. No private person can bring such a contest on the pretext of 'redressing a public wrong.' ” See also Curry v. Baker, 802 F.2d 1302 , 1312 n. 6 (11th Cir.1986) (questioning, in dicta, the standing of non-candidate challengers to bring equal protection and due process claims, noting that purported injury was”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the only Act of Congress conferring jurisdiction on a United States District Court in a state or local election contest (primary or general) to hear and decide the issue of who has received a majority of the votes legally cast.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Keyes v. Gunn · Griffin v. Burns
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.