54 Cal. 3d 471 - Wilson v. Eu’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably 4 Cal. 4th 668 - Butt v. State of California (1992), 25 Cal. 4th 703 - People v. Superior Court (2001)
4 federal appellate · 22 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1971 (Civil Rights Act of 1957)
Relies on 6 Cal. 3d 595 - Legislature v. Reinecke · 10 Cal. 3d 396 - Legislature v. Reinecke · 7 Cal. 3d 92 - Legislature v. Reinecke · 9 Cal. 3d 166 - Legislature v. Reinecke
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Masters’ plans immediately available to counties—The Secretary asks that we make the Masters’ recommended plans available to county election officials as soon as available (on or before November 29), “in a computer-readable electronic medium with supporting maps and hard copy.” We accept this proposal. Wilson I contemplates that once filed with us, the Masters’ plans will become available for inspection by any interested persons. (See supra, ante, at p. 474.) We are further informed that the plans can be placed in a “computer-ready” format. 2. Submit Masters’ plans for preclearance—The Secretary next proposes to submit the recommended plans to the United States Department of Justice “on an informational basis” for eventual preclearance under the Voting Rights Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 1971 et seq.), immediately on filing them with us. This aspect of the proposal also seems sound, based on the reasonable assumption that the appropriate federal agencies will cooperate with the Secretary in accelerating the preclearance process to accommodate the evident time pressures. 3. Submit Masters’ plans to counties for encoding—On the filing of the plans with us, the Secretary will immediately direct county election officials to begin encoding the Masters’ recommended plans into their computer files. This approach is consistent with that taken in 1981, when the Secretary instructed county officials to encode the Legislature’s newly adopted district lines prior to our decision actually approvi”
1 later decision 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.