Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 572 F.2d 1113 - Broussard v. Perez

Broussard v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis

572 F.2d 1113 · 1978

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
November 2002
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently November 2002

5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

701978198019902000decided

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. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)

Relies on Samuel Bailey v. Joe T. Patterson · East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall · 416 F. Supp. 584 - Broussard v. Perez

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

  1. “When Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it provided for a three-judge court in 42 U.S.C. § 1973c because in cases involving a clash between state and federal authorities, hearing by a three-judge court with a direct appeal to the Supreme Court would hopefully lessen federal-state friction which was bound to arise due to this intrusion into a traditionally state-controlled province. In Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31 , 82 S.Ct. 549 , 7 L.Ed.2d 512 (1962), recognizing this same policy governed Congress when it passed 28 U.S.C. § 2281 et seq. (provided for three-judge courts in certain instances), the Supreme Court held that if the constitutional issue presented is insubstantial or frivolous, it is not necessary to convene a three-judge court. Because the policy considerations are identical, we agree with the district court’s holding that the Bailey precedent can be applied to actions brought under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act which are insubstantial or frivolous. Defendants’ contentions that they are not covered by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, that they made an effective submission of an election plan to the Attorney General, and that the Attorney General did not object to this submission are without merit. As the district court stated, “In all important respects, this conclusion is controlled by Supreme Court precedent or cannot be seriously contested.” Broussard v. Perez, 416 F.Supp. 584, 589 (E.D.La.1976). We, therefore, hold that defendants’ arguments are insu”
    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.