Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 585 U.S. 579 - Abbott v. Perez

Abbott v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

130
cited by 130 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 130 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009), In Re Deposit Insurance Agency (2007)

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions

68020182020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Western District Court)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 52 U.S.C. § 10301 · 52 U.S.C. § 10302

Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Reynolds v. Sims · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · McCleskey v. Zant

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

  1. “[W]here an order has the 'practical effect' of granting or denying an injunction, it should be treated as such for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “The reason that a minority group making such a challenge must show, as a threshold matter, that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district is this: Unless minority voters possess the potential to elect representatives in the absence of the challenged structure or practice, they cannot claim to have been injured by that structure or practice.”
    2 later decisions 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.