Sutton v. Escambia County Board of Education’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.2d 770 · 1987
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2013
6 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15 · Carrington v. Rash · Cipriano v. City of Houma · Finch v. Connor · City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The voters sought to be excluded here, in addition to being city residents, are at the same time county residents, just as they are residents of the state and of the United States. Residents of an area are normally qualified to vote in the elections of the governing bodies of those areas. To exclude them from elections in the county in which they reside requires a compelling state interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n close cases, the decisions dictate that overinclusiveness is less of a constitutional evil than underinclusiveness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The party seeking to exclude city residents from voting in the county school board elections has the burden of demonstrating that the application of the Alabama statute here is irrational or wholly irrelevant to the state’s objective of electoral participation in the selection of county school board members. The test for whether the statute is irrational ... is whether the city residents have a substantial interest in the operation of the county school system. If the city residents do not have a substantial interest, then the state must exclude the city residents from voting.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.