Sam Ulysses Turner v. John J. McKeithen Ouachita Parish Police Jury’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 federal appellate · 5 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a minority group is not constitutionally entitled to an apportionment structure designed to maximize its political advantage.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kirksey v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF HINDS CTY., MISS. · Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors

2. ““Among the factors entitled to consideration are the continuing effects of past discrimination on the minority group’s ability to participate in the political process, the opportunity for the minority group to participate in the candidate selection process, the responsiveness of elected officials to the particular concerns of the minority group, and the strength of the state interest in multi-member or at-large voting. Furthermore, both White v. Reges-ter and Zimmer recognized that the presence of various structural voting devices such as a majority vote requirement, anti-single shot voting, large districts, and lack of residency requirements in a district or its geographical subdivisions may increase the potential for dilution under a mul-ti-member or at-large arrangement. Dilution, as with so many complex factual determinations turns on an aggregation of the circumstances.” (footnotes deleted) Turner, supra, 490 F.2d at 194 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bradas v. Rapides Parish Police Jury

3. “. . being used invidiously to cancel out or minimize the voting strength of racial groups ... To sustain such claims, it is not enough that the racial group allegedly discriminated against has not had legislative seats in proportion to its voting potential. The plaintiff’s burden is to produce evidence to support findings that the political processes leading to nomination and election were not equally open to participation by the group in question — that its members had less opportunity than did other residents in the district to participate in the political processes and to elect legislators of their choice.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Greater Houston Civic Council v. Mann