Terrazas v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements (1993), State v. Morales (1994)
4 federal appellate · 42 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 332nd Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Baker v. Carr · Reynolds v. Sims · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · United States v. MacDonald · 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The responsibility for apportioning the State into legislative districts belongs primarily to the Legislature. TEX. CONST. art. III, § 28. The judiciary, however, is both empowered and, when properly called upon, obliged to declare whether an apportionment statute enacted by the Legislature is valid. Reynolds v. Sims , 377 U.S. 533 , 84 S.Ct. 1362 , 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964); Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186 , 82 S.Ct. 691 , 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962); Clements v. Valles , 620 S.W.2d 112 (Tex. 1981); Smith v. Craddick 471 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. 1971); Smith v. Patterson , 111 Tex. 535 , 242 S.W. 749 (1922). A judicial determination that an apportionment statute violates a constitutional provision is no more an encroachment on the prerogative of the Legislature than the same determination with respect to some other statute. The Legislature, as well as the judiciary, must comply with the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution. Yet a court's duty to consider a party's constitutional challenge to a statute, never to be taken lightly, and the deference owed a coordinate branch of government, are rarely more sensitive of serious matters than when the statute attacked involves the highly politically charged subject of apportionment."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a district court cannot order a reapportionment plan for the State based on nothing more than an agreement of the Governor, the Attorney General, and a few citizens.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“discretion includes the authority to propose a settlement agreement in an action attacking the constitutionality of a reapportionment statute.”
2 later decisions 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.