Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 527 F.2d 44 - Kendrick v. Walder

Kendrick v. Walder’s Empirical Analysis

527 F.2d 44 · 1975

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
December 1992
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 1992

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

140197519801990decided

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. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2202 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Roe v. Wade · O'Shea v. Littleton · Steffel v. Thompson · Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez · Snowden v. Hughes

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

  1. ““The analysis . . . does not stop with a consideration of whether the one-man, one-vote ideal has been achieved, but reaches beyond mathematical equality to see if the group in question can obtain effective representation within the electoral system as it operates. This is not to suggest that the designation of seats for minority representatives in proportion to their voting strength is compelled (or even permitted) by the equal protection clause, but if, as a result of the method of apportionment, the group is disadvantaged in its use of the ballot, an equal protection claim may exist. White v. Regester, supra; Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 , 91 S.Ct. 1858 , 29 L.Ed.2d 363 (1971); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 , 86 S.Ct. 1286 , 16 L.Ed.2d 376 (1966); Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433 , 85 S.Ct. 498 , 13 L.Ed.2d 401 (1965).” 527 F.2d 48 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “use of a statute which is not attacked as unconstitutional.”
    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.