green
Positive treatment
Trending · 58 recent citers
12.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
Raleigh Wake Citizens Ass'n v. Wake County Board of Elections
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
But see Larios v. Cox, 300 F.Supp.2d 1320, 1339-53 (N.D.Ga.) (three-judge court) (per curiam) (invalidating reapportionment plan with 9.98% maximum population deviation), summarily aff’d, 542 U.S. 947 , 124 S.Ct. 2806 , 159 L.Ed.2d 831 (2004). 2.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gary Wygant v. Bill Lee, Governor
Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947, 949 (2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chaldean Coalition v. County of San Diego Independent Redistricting etc. CA4/1
(See Cox v. Larios, supra, 542 U.S. at p. 947 [“The judgment is affirmed.”].) Accordingly, we reject this argument because it is too conclusory and underdeveloped to demonstrate error.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Perez v. Abbott
Stevens characterized the appeal as an “invit[ation] ... to weaken the one-person, one-vote standard by creating a safe harbor for population deviations of less than 10 percent, within which districting decisions could be made for any reason whatsoever.” Id. at 949, 124 S.Ct. 2806 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Whitford v. Gill
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the three-judge district court’s decision finding an Equal Protection violation. 542 U.S. at 947-50, 124 S.Ct. 2806 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Calla Wright v. State of North Carolina
After our recent decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 , 124 S. Ct. 1769 , 158 L.Ed.2d 546 (2004), the equal-population principle remains the only clear limitation on improper districting practices, and we must be careful not to dilute its strength. 542 U.S. at 949-50 (emphasis added).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
(6×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
See 542 U. S. 947 ; id., at 951 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
examined
Cited "see"
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
(3×)
See Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947 , 124 S.Ct. 2806 , 159 L.Ed.2d 831 (2004) (summarily affirming the invalidation of a plan with a 9.98 percent maximum population deviation).
discussed
Cited "see"
Loggins v. Cline
(2×)
See Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947, 951 , 124 S.Ct. 2806 , 159 L.Ed.2d 831 (Scalia, J., dissenting); Kan.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lionel Gustafson v. The Honorable Adrian Johns
(2×)
See Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947 , 124 S.Ct. 2806 , 159 L.Ed.2d 831 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Rojas Tapia
The report further notes that Rojas-Tapia’s “understanding of the legal process should not be assumed,” then recommends that Rojas-Tapia be permitted “regularly” to consult with his attorney at trial, and be required “to restate information in his own words to ensure an adequate level of understanding.” The waiver inquiry ultimately turns not upon any one factor, but upon all the attendant circumstances, see Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 285 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), including “both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation,…
examined
Cited "see"
Moore v. Itawamba County MS
(4×)
See Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947 , 124 S.Ct. 2806, 2809 , 159 L.Ed.2d 831 (2004) (SCALIA, J., dissenting). 2 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In re: River Valley S.D. ~ Appeal of: B. Caranese
Compare Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947 . . . (2004), summarily aff[’]g 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1325-34 (N.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Petition to Realign Regional Election Districts in Pennsbury School District
(2×)
Compare Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947 , 124 S.Ct. 2806 , 159 L.Ed.2d 831 (2004), summarily affirming 300 F.Supp.2d 1320, 1325-34 (N.D.Ga.2004) (state legislative reapportionment plan with 9.98% maximum deviation violat ed Equal Protection Clause where there was evidence that plan systematically maximized population deviations by overpopulating certain types of districts and under-populating others through oddly shaped districts) with Reapportionment of Township of Haverford, 873 A.2d at 825-27, 833-36 (local reapportionment plan with' 9.52% maximum deviation was constitutional under Equal Protec…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Department of Justice Views on the Proposed Constitution Drafted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the U.S. Virgin Islands
Districting plans with such deviations may not be “automatically immune from constitutional attack,” but they are at least “presumptively constitutional, and the burden lies on the plaintiffs to rebut that presump- 7 Article V, § 2(b) refers to a plan for “reappointment” rather than “reapportionment.” We assume this is a typographical error. 93 34 Op. O.L.C. 73 (2010) tion.” Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d at 1340–41; see also Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. at 949 (Stevens, J., concurring) (describing Court’s summary affirmance as “properly reject[ing]” the defendants’ “in…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Department of Justice Views on the Proposed Constitution Drafted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands
Districting plans with such deviations may not be “automatically immune from constitutional attack,” but they are at least “presumptively constitutional, and the burden lies on the plaintiffs to rebut that presumption.” Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d at 1340-41 ; see also Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. at 949 (Stevens, J., concurring) (describing Court’s summary affirmance as “properly reject[ing]” the defendants’ “invitation” to “creat[e] a safe harbor for population deviations of less than 10 percent”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Barraza
v.
Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
v.
Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
03A1058 (03-11049).
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 29, 2004.
Published
Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice & alia, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending the disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the issuance of the mandate of this Court.