Seastrunk v. Burns’s Empirical Analysis
772 F.2d 143 · 1985
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Garza v. County of Los Angeles (1990), Westwego Citizens for Better Government v. City of Westwego (1991)
18 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Reynolds v. Sims · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · City of Mobile v. Bolden · White v. Regester
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The federal district court is precluded from substituting even what it considers to be an objectively superior plan for an otherwise constitutionally and legally valid plan that has been proposed and enacted by the appropriate state governmental unit.” - The district court must accept a plan offered by the local government if it does not violate statutory provisions or the Constitution.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Veasey v. Abbott · Veasey v. Abbott“[E]ven where a legislative choice of policy is perceived to have been unwise, or simply not the optimum choice, absent a choice that is either unconstitutional or otherwise illegal under federal law, federal courts must defer to that legislative judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. May a local three-judge federal district court acting under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act substitute a court-crafted redistricting plan for a legislatively approved plan that obtained section 5 preclearánce from the United States Department of Justice? 2. Does preclearance from the United States Department of Justice establish' prima facie validity of a redistricting plan so as to preclude interim injunctive relief under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act absent extreme and unique circumstances?”
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.