Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 78 F.R.D. 207 - Phillips v. Beasley

Phillips v. Beasley’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
February 2010
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 2010

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

1019781980199020002010decided

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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Reynolds v. Sims · Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15 · Finch v. Connor · Sailors v. Board of Ed. of Kent Cty.

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

  1. “those who claim their votes are being unconstitutionally diluted not through apportionment or weighting schemes, but through franchising of additional voters should bear the burden of demonstrating that the state's decision is irrational or otherwise impermissible”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “members of the Tuscaloosa County Board of Education are elected by the qualified voters of the entire county, even though part of the county is served by the separate school system of the City of Tuscaloosa, which has its own appointed board of education”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the apportionment of voting power for the election of the state legislature unequally among different groups of voters, all of whom were considered to have an equal interest in the bodies to be elected”
    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.