Jeffers v. Clinton’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2019
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973A (§ 3 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973B (§ 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Washington v. Davis · Hecht Co. v. Bowles · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp.
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.
“[N]o plan of apportionment. . . adopted [by the Board of Apportionment] may go into effect until sixty (60) days have elapsed from the date of its final adoption by the Board. This Court will retain jurisdiction, within that time period, for the purpose of entertaining any challenge by the plaintiffs in this case to such plan. If no such challenge is forthcoming, the plan may go into effect, subject, however, to the right of any aggrieved citizen to challenge it in an appropriate action at a later time.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“inference of racial motivation ... inescapable,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ****** We hold that the same proof of conscious racial discrimination required to show a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is also required in Fifteenth Amendment cases. Accord, Nevett v. Sides, 571 F.2d 209, 220-21 (5th Cir.1978). This does not mean that racial discrimination must be the sole motive behind the action challenged. It need only be one of the motivating factors but for which the action would not have been taken.”
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.