Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 926 FSUPP 1460 - Johnson v. Mortham

Johnson v. Mortham’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023

1 state decisions

801996200020102020decided

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. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)

Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Reynolds v. Sims · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty · County of Los Angeles v. Davis

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

  1. “and where the level of black participation .in politics is depressed, plaintiffs need not prove any further causal nexus between their disparate socio-economic status and the depressed level of political participation.” S.Rep. at 29 n. 114, 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 206-07 n. 114. 63 . If a vote dilution claim with the facts in Teague could not be stated under the results test, it seems unlikely that such a claim could ever be established absent proof of discriminatory intent in the voting community. Congress noted similar problems occurred in the aftermath of Bolden, when”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “The reason for showing decreased voter participation is because '[t]he Voting Rights Act and Fifteenth Amendment apply only to racial discrimination, not discrimination based on socio-economic status.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.