Nash v. Blunt’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 district ·
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 Thornburg v. Gingles · Aetna Life Insurance v. Lavoie · Davis v. Bandemer · Wise v. Lipscomb · Beer v. United States
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district. ****** Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. ****** Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it — in the absence of special circumstances, such as the minority candidate running unopposed ... — usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jeffers v. Tucker“by assuming 60% of the voting age population is the appropriate target percentage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“composed of contiguous territory as compact as may be.”
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.