LaRoque v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “drawing all reasonable inferences from those allegations in plaintiffs’ favor, Worth [v. Seldin], 422 U.S. [490,] 501 [, 95 S.Ct. 2197 , 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)], and”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barker v. Conroy · 961 F. Supp. 2d 185 - Kaplan v. Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran

2. “[w]ithout meaningful briefing on these issues, we are hesitant to decide plaintiffs’ count-two standing. Of course, we could ask for additional briefing. But that would take time, and as plaintiffs’ repeated requests for us to expedite this litigation so that it can be resolved before the November 2011 election indicate, time is of the essence. Given this, and given that plaintiffs themselves characterize count two as a fallback position, see Oral Arg. Tr. at 13:2-4, 15:11—15 (characterizing count two as an “alternative claim[ ]” that plaintiffs brought in case they lose on count one), we are reluctant to consume precious time resolving plaintiffs’ standing to bring count two — time the district court could instead devote to considering the merits of plaintiffs’ principal argument, asserted in count one, that Congress’s 2006 reauthorization of section 5 exceeded its Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment enforcement powers.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 831 F. Supp. 2d 183 - Laroque v. Holder

3. “[t]he citizens of Kinston, North Carolina, approved a referendum switching city elections from partisan to nonpartisan. Because Kinston lies in a jurisdiction covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the city council had no authority to implement the referendum until precleared by federal authorities, and preclearance has not occurred. A candidate for public office [Plaintiff Nix] claiming a state-law entitlement to run under the suspended nonpartisan system, together with other plaintiffs, filed suit seeking to enjoin the Attorney General from enforcing section 5 against Kinston.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kendall v. Howard County