Chisom v. Roemer’s Empirical Analysis
853 F.2d 1186 · 1988
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Chisom v. Roemer (1991), Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley (2003)
10 federal appellate · 1 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 Reynolds v. Sims · Sampson v. Murray · Illinois Power Co. v. Local Union No. 51, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, Blue Ridge Gas Company, Intervenor. Petition for Review of Order of the Federal Power Commission, No. 14583. Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, Appeal From United States District Court for the District of Columbia · The Canal Authority of the State of Florida v. Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the United States Army, the Cross-Florida Canal Association v. Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the United States Army, Eleanor H. Miller v. Avery S. Fullerton, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, J. G. Perko v. The Canal Authority of the State of Florida, Etc.
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The six-district apportionment plan proposed by the Town Board (and described at A-3 through A-10 hereof) satisfies the requirements of the United States Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and is hereby adopted; (2) The defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise, are each restrained and enjoined: (a) from using the current at-large apportionment plan for the Town Board of the Town of Hempstead in any future elections; (b) from failing to implement and use the six-district apportionment plan adopted herein; and (c) from failing to hold a special election under said plan according to a schedule to be determined by the Court at a later time; and (3) the implementation of the foregoing plan, and the obligations set forth in the section (2) above, are stayed pending appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]very public officer in this state ... [to] continue to discharge the duties of his office until his successor is inducted into office.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“intervention by the federal courts in state elections has always been a serious business, not to be lightly engaged in”
2 later decisions 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.