Lipscomb v. Wise’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[t]he district court approved the City's plan for relief, which was enacted as a city ordinance following the court's decision that the prior system was unconstitutional.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. WISE Et Al. v. LIPSCOMB Et Al. · Wise v. Lipscomb

2. ““The major difficulty with the district court’s decision that a mixed plan would improve Mexican-American access to the political process is that there has never been a determination that their access has been unconstitutionally impaired. At the liability stage of the trial, there was no evidence presented concerning the voting rights of the dismissed chicano plaintiffs____ “... Shortly after the trial court judgment an election was held at which a member of the [Mexican-American] class was defeated for one of the at-large posts. 73 Thereafter, counsel for the Mexican-American intervenors filed a motion with the trial court for a further hearing as to the correctness of the trial court’s order approving the eight/three City Council ... “Thus, it will be seen that by pleadings filed by them, a class for whose benefit the trial court sought to act, has not only disclaimed the ‘benefit’ but also denied the basis of which it rests.” ( 551 F.2d at 1047-48 ) (emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 734 F. Supp. 1317 - Williams v. City of Dallas

3. ““Intervenors would show the Court that under the approved 8-3 plan Mexican-Americans are restricted in their access from entering into the political life of Dallas. It is clear that at-large voting does not offer features which allow greater participation in the political process within Dallas for Mexican-American voters, but in fact dilutes the. vote of the Mexican-American citizen and makes it impossible for a Mexican-American to participate meaningfully in the election process. Intervenors would show the Court that the results of the election of April 1, 1975, and other additional evidence will establish that Mexican-Americans are being denied representation and do suffer from the present dilution of their voting strength and do not benefit to a significant extent from at-large voting.” 551 F.2d at 1048 (5th Cir.1977).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 734 F. Supp. 1317 - Williams v. City of Dallas