523 F. Supp. 167 - Herron v. Koch’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973B (§ 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Allen v. State Board of Elections · South Carolina v. Katzenbach · United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey · Perkins v. Matthews · Beer v. United States
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“prohibits any state or political subdivision subject to § 5 of the Act from enforcing any change in voting qualifications, prerequisites, practices, procedures or standards with respect to voting unless it has either (1) obtained a declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that the change “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race[,] color, or [membership in a language minority],” or (2) submitted the proposed change to the Attorney General of the United States “and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within sixty days after such submission, the Attorney General has not affirmatively indicated that such objection will not be made.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If Herron’s earlier motion was premature, and we agree that an injunction was properly denied on that basis, and the present motion is to be denied on the ground that in the interval energies and monies have been expended that would make an injunction work hardship on the City and the candidates, we are at a loss to guess at what time the voters could sensibly hope to enjoin a City, that has not complied with § 5, from enforcing its changes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We must decide only (1) whether the change is covered by § 5, (2) if the change is covered whether the § 5 requirements were satisfied, and (3) if the requirements were not satisfied, what remedy is appropriate.”
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.