Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 888 F.3d 792 - Veasey v. Abbott

Veasey v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis

888 F.3d 792 · 2018

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
December 2023
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2023

6020182020decided

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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Washington v. Davis · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

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.

  1. “because SB 5 constitutes an effective remedy for the only deficiencies testified to in SB 14, and it essentially mirrors an agreed interim order for the same purpose, the State has acted promptly following this Court's mandate, and there is no equitable basis for subjecting Texas to ongoing federal election scrutiny under Section 3(c).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “under the circumstances of th[e] case, the court had no legal or factual basis to invalidate SB 5, and its contemplation of Section 3(c) relief accordingly fail[ed] as well.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “SB 14 was racially discriminatory against only the subset of indigent minority voters and did not affect the vast majority of Texas voters of all races,”
    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.