Cavanagh v. Brock’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2020
4 federal appellate · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1443 · 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 28 U.S.C. § 291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Wisconsin v. Constantineau · England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners · Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County · Georgia v. Rachel
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not "effective as law" in the forty covered counties. With the [provision's] effect thus territorially circumscribed by federal authority, under North Carolina law [it] would be effective in the sixty non-covered counties only if there were manifest a legislative, and popular, intent that the [provision] should be applied differentially across the state if for any reasonincluding a failure of section 5 preclearance[it] should be held of no effect in respect of some portions of the state. We find no evidence of such an intent in any legislative source. The illogic, indeed the questionable legality, of such a consequence is manifest. We therefore conclude that the [provision was] necessarily intended by the legislature and the populace voting by referendum upon the legislatively proposed [provision] to rise or fall as a whole.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This determination with respect to the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act should in no way be regarded as precluding the State from following a policy of preserving county lines whenever feasible in formulating its new districts. Indeed, this is the policy in many states, subject only to the preclearance requirements of Section 5, where applicable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“seeking declaratory and injunctive relief restraining the state of North Carolina from implementing the reapportionment plans as precleared on April 30, 1982, by the Attorney General,”
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.