Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 507 U.S. 25 - Growe v. Emison

Growe v. Emison’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

735
cited by 735 later decisions
34
cited 34 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
November 2025
most recently cited

168 federal appellate · 80 district · 92 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 735 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Quackenbush California Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance Co (1996), Johnson v. De Grandy (1994)

168 federal appellate · 80 district · 92 state decisions — followed in 20 states

29401993200020102020decided

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

Relies on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. · Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers · Thornburg v. Gingles

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

  1. “that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it ... usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.”
    25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “(f)(1) The Congress finds that voting discrimination against citizens of language minorities is pervasive and national in scope. Such minority citizens are from environments in which the dominant language is other than English. In addition they have been denied equal educational opportunities by State and local governments, resulting in severe disabilities and continuing illiteracy in the English language. The Congress further finds that, where State and local officials conduct elections only in English, language minority citizens are excluded from participating in the electoral process. In many areas of the country, this exclusion is aggravated by acts of physical, economic, and political intimidation. The Congress declares that, in order to enforce the guarantees of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, it is necessary to eliminate such discrimination by prohibiting English-only elections, and by prescribing other remedial devices. (2) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote because he is a member of a language minority group.”
    23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.