Consumer Party v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
778 F.2d 140 · 1985
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Government of the Virgin Islands v. Knight (1993), 929 F. Supp. 824 - American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno (1996)
11 federal appellate · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons · Anderson v. Celebrezze · Milliken v. Bradley · American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In passing Act 190, the legislature unwittingly but effectively barred political parties with few registered members from nominating candidates for the primary election. Moreover, because primary nomination is the only route available for members of political parties to attain general election ballot access, 25 P.S. § 2862, small parties, unable to nominate candidates for the general election ballot, are deprived of meaningful participation in the political process. This action was brought in the district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the Consumer Party and its members (appellants). 2 The complaint alleges that Act 190 deprives appellants of a primary election and that, in conjunction with other provisions of the Election Code, deprives them of general election ballot access, all in violation of appellants’ first amendment rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court must, at all events, hold a final hearing at which the parties will develop a fuller record and, perhaps, suggest a better solution. 15 As the primary election machinery will soon come into gear, we expect that the district court will immediately commence a hearing and make such factual findings as are necessary for a final order to be entered. Assuming that its earlier constitutional findings are not at issue—and neither party has challenged them on appeal—the district court would then select an appropriate remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There are several advantages to party status. For example, parties, but not bodies, are listed on all voter registration forms. Parties can designate candidates by certification in special elections, whereas bodies must use the cumbersome signature-gathering process to nominate candidates for such elections. Parties also enjoy much more prestige in the eyes of the media and public. The most significant difference between parties and bodies, however, is the method by which they nominate candidates for the general election.”
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.