Cane v. Worcester County, Md.’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2010
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Thornburg v. Gingles · United States v. Paradise · Chapman v. Meier · Connor v. Finch · Upham v. Seamon
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to give great deference to legislative judgments about the nature and scope of the proposed remedy and to reconcile the requirements of the statute with the goals of county political policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[c]umulative voting is less likely to increase polarization between different interests,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Holder v. Hall“will allow the voters, by the way they exercise their votes, to 'district' themselves,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Holder v. Hall
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.