Gilbert v. Sterrett’s Empirical Analysis
509 F.2d 1389 · 1975
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Golf City, Inc. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. (1977), Kona Technology Corp. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (2000)
36 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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
Relies on Gomillion v. Lightfoot · White v. Regester · Schneiderman v. United States · Whitcomb v. Chavis · Burns v. Richardson
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““whether the plan, combined with a past history of racial discrimination and present political realities, gives minority group members ‘less opportunity than . . . other residents in the district to participate in the political processes and to elect legislators of their choice,’ . . . [citation omitted] . . . The rule is a judicial recognition of what common sense commands — that the effect or impact of a redistricting plan cannot be evaluated accurately when considered in isolation but only when examined against the backdrop of racial discrimination in the community, past and present.” Gilbert v. Sterrett, 509 F.2d 1389 (5th Cir. 1975) (dissenting opinion).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“should be construed liberally and found to be in consonance with the judgment, so long as that judgment is supported by evidence in the record”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a minority group is not constitutionally entitled to an apportionment structure designed to maximize its political advantage.”
1 later decision 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.