Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 85 F.3d 919 - Baker v. Pataki

Baker v. Pataki’s Empirical Analysis

85 F.3d 919 · 1996

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
2
states following
May 2015
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Hayden v. Paterson (2010), McGary v. City of Portland (2004)

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

360199620002010decided

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 Neil v. Biggers · Hill v. Lockhart · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Brecht v. Abrahamson

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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Section] 2 was not designed to permit the purposeful racial discrimination [in Alabama's criminal disenfranchisement law] ... which otherwise violates [Section] 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing in ... Richardson v. Ramirez suggests the contrary.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[A]ny attempt by Congress to subject felon disenfranchisement provisions to the `results' methodology of [the VRA] would pose a serious constitutional question concerning the scope of Congress's power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “not only has Congress failed ever to make a legislative finding that felon disenfranchisement is a pretext ... for racial discrimination[,] it has effectively determined that it is not.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.