Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 543 FSUPP 235 - Burton v. Hobbie

Burton v. Hobbie’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
May 2002
most recently cited

2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2002

2 state decisions

30198219902000decided

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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Connor v. Finch · White v. Weiser · Upham v. Seamon · Whitcomb v. Chavis · 537 F. Supp. 514 - Terrazas v. Clements

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

  1. “1. Act No. 83-154 (House Bill 1, Second Special Session) has been precleared by the Attorney General of the United States under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973c. 2. The parties agree that said Act meets applicable state and federal constitutional criteria for a state-enacted reapportionment plan. 3. The plaintiffs advanced the claim that Act No. 82-629 (the basis of the 1982 elections) violated the State and Federal Constitutions and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The plaintiffs agree that these statutory and constitutional defects have been corrected by Act No. 83-154 and have compromised with the defendants by agreeing to withdraw any claim for 1983 elections except in the limited area necessary to remedy the statutory violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, to wit, the western Black Belt area in which the Justice Department objected to Act No. 82-629. The plaintiffs have filed with the Court their suggested plans for 1983 elections in the western Black Belt. The defendants oppose 1983 elections for any legislative districts. 4. The parties agree that a special legislative election in 1983 would be extremely expensive for the State of Alabama and its counties.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “districts were unsatisfactory. Defendants' modifications reduced the number of Black Belt counties which would be split, but also reduced the number of”
    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.