Shaw v. Hunt’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015 · most notably Miller v. Johnson (1995), Bush v. Al Vera Lawson (1996)
10 federal appellate · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 2 U.S.C. § 2A · 2 U.S.C. § 2C · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973B (§ 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Batson v. Kentucky · Warth v. Seldin · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nor do we read the passage in Hays I upon which plaintiffs ... rely as holding that the state bears the burden of persuasion with respect to either prong of the strict scrutiny inquiry. While the Hays I court did remark that there was a rough “parallelism" between "the State's burden here of establishing the affirmative justification of a compelling state interest” and a "criminal defendant's burden'— at common law — of establishing an affirmative defense” ... it was very careful to point out that it was not using this analogy to make any point about the burden of persuasion with respect to the presence or absence of such justification.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Johnson v. Mortham“[I]n a Shaw-like challenge to a race-based redistricting plan, as in any other sort of Equal Protection case, the state’s burden at the strict scrutiny stage is producing evidence that the plan’s use of race is narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest, and that plaintiffs bear the ultimate burden of persuading the court either that the proffered justification is not compelling or that the Plan is not narrowly tailored to further it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Johnson v. Mortham“when a state has reliable information that indicates the relevant minority group could establish a prima facie challenge under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to the existing districting plan, then it has a “strong basis in evidence” for concluding that it must engage in race-based redistricting to comply with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and it has established a “compelling interest” for remedial measures.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Johnson v. Mortham
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.