Werme v. Merrill’s Empirical Analysis
84 F.3d 479 · 1996
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Perez v. Volvo Car Corp. (2001), Acosta v. Ames Department Stores, Inc. (2004)
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Reynolds v. Sims · Anderson v. Celebrezze · Storer v. Brown · Bullock v. Carter · Burdick v. Takushi
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh "the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate" against the "precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule," taking into consideration "the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he regulation conditions the right to appoint election inspectors and ballot clerks on a certain degree of success at the polls. Distinguishing between recognized political parties based on past electoral accomplishment is not per se invidiously discriminatory. ... [T]he Libertarian Party has exactly the same opportunity to qualify as a source of election inspectors and ballot clerks under New Hampshire law as does any other party. Equality of opportunity exists, and equality of opportunity — not equality of outcomes — is the linchpin of what the [Federal] Constitution requires in this type of situation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Given the character and magnitude (or, more aptly put, lack of magnitude) of the alleged injury to the plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, we conclude that the defendants need only show that the enactment of the regulation had a rational basis.”) As I have explained, HB 1542 creates a burden that, although not severe, is more than trivial. Thus, under Anderson analysis, it requires'a more searching review than mere rational-basis scrutiny to verify that the State's interest is”
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.