green
Positive treatment
5.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Veasey v. Perry
United States, 885 F.Supp.2d 299, 354 (D.D.C.2012); Rosenstiel v. Rodriguez, 101 F.3d 1544, 1552 (8th Cir.1996); but cf. Busbee v. Smith, 549 F.Supp. 494, 500-03, 508-09, 516-18 (D.D.C.1982), aff'd, 459 U.S. 1166 , 103 S.Ct. 809 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1983) (finding discriminatory intent based in part on overt racial statements made by the chairman of the Georgia redistricting committee who “used the full power of his position and personality to insure passage of his desired Congressional plan”). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Pintro v. Rosenworcel
See Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494 , 516–17 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d, 459 U.S. 1166 (1983) (noting that “[o]vert racial statements . . . provide only one basis for finding discriminatory intent[,]” and “[f]requently the most probative evidence of intent will be objective evidence of what actually happened rather than evidence describing the subjective state of mind of the actor” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
cited
Cited "see"
Overby v. Simon
See Craig, 980 F.3d at 618 (citing Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494, 525 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d, 459 U.S. 1166 (1983)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Abrams v. Johnson
(2×)
See Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494, 500 , aff'd, 459 U. S. 1166 (1982); App. 139-140.
cited
Cited "see"
State of Ariz. v. Reno
See Busbee v. Smith, 549 F.Supp. 494, 516-17 (D.D.C.1982), ajfd, 459 U.S. 1166 , 103 S.Ct. 809 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
New York v. United States
See Busbee v. Smith, 549 F.Supp. 494, 516 (D.D.C.1982), aff'd mem., 459 U.S. 1166 , 103 S.Ct. 809 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
State of NY v. United States
See Busbee v. Smith, 549 F.Supp. 494, 516 (D.D.C.1982), aff'd mem., 459 U.S. 1166 , 103 S.Ct. 809 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Miller
See Busbee v. Smith, 549 F.Supp. 494 (D.D.C.1982), aff'd, 459 U.S. 1166 , 103 S.Ct. 809 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lepore v. National Tool and Mfg. Co.
Accord McCarthy v. Bark Perking, 676 F. 2d 42 (2nd Cir.1982), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 459 U.S. 1166 , 103 S.Ct. 809 , 74 L.Ed. 2d 1010 (1983); King v. Fox Grocery Co., 642 F. Supp. 288 (W.D.Pa. 1986); Holmes v. Schneider Power Corp., 628 F. Supp. 937 (W.D.Pa. 1986), aff'd 806 F. 2d 252 (3rd Cir.1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. United States
McCarthy v. The Bark Peking, 716 F.2d 130, 131 (2d Cir.1983); see 459 U.S. 1166 , 103 S.Ct. 809 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1983). 17 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Foster v. Love
See also Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494, 524 (DC 1982) (recounting the purposes of § 7), aff’d, 459 U. S. 1166 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board
(2×)
See Pleasant Grove v. United States, 479 U. S. 462, 469-470 (1987) (considering city's history in rejecting annexation of *489 black neighborhood and its departure from normal procedures when calculating costs of annexation alternatives); see also Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494, 516-517 (DC 1982), summarily aff'd, 459 U. S. 1166 (1983) (referring to Arlington Heights test); Port Arthur v. United States, 517 F. Supp. 987, 1019 , aff'd, 459 U. S. 159 (1982) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bossier Parish School Bd. v. Reno
(2×)
See also Busbee v. Smith, 549 F.Supp. 494, 516-517 (1982), aff'd 459 U.S. 1166 , 103 S.Ct. 809 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shaw v. Hunt
(2×)
See, e.g., Busbee v. Smith, 549 F.Supp. 494, 516 (D.D.C.1982) (three-judge court), aff'd, 459 U.S. 1166 , 103 S.Ct. 809 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1983); see also City of Richmond, 422 U.S. at 372, 378-79 , 95 S.Ct. at 2304-05, 2307-08 . 32 When an earlier version of a state’s redistricting plan is denied preelearance by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on the ground that it fails to satisfy either the “purpose” or “effect” prong of the § 5 test, the state obviously has a “strong basis in evidence” for concluding that the Voting Rights Act requires it to eng…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wiggins ex rel. Wiggins v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services
Settled law in the area of statutory construction of revised codes, however, indicates that, absent substantive comment, “it is generally held that a change in statutory language during codification is not intended to alter the statute’s scope.” Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 318 , 105 S.Ct. 3180, 3187 , 87 L.Ed.2d 220 (1985) (citing Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 467-74 , 95 S.Ct. 2178, 2186-89 , 45 L.Ed.2d 319 (1975)); see also Busbee v. Smith, 549 F.Supp. 494 (D.C.D.C.1982), aff 'd 459 U.S. 1166 , 103 S.Ct. 809 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1983) (revised statu…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
County Bd. of Arlington County v. Bratic
See also City of Manassas v. Rosson, 224 Va. 12, 18 , 294 S.E.2d 799, 802 (1982), appeal dismissed, 459 U.S. 1166 (1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Chin
v.
Nadel
v.
Nadel
No. 82-5512.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 17, 1983.
Published
ante, p. 1043. Petition for rehearing denied.