Florida v. United States (2012)
green
· 105 citation events
across 8 courts.
Showing the 10 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201220192026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
See R. 41-3 (Trende Rep. at 31) (Page ID # 1041) (noting that African American voter turnout has risen in Ohio and the United States as a whole since 2004); see also Florida v. United States, 885 F.Supp.2d 299, 326 (D.D.C. 2012) (“[W]e cannot ignore elections in which minority candidates make breakthroughs in winning elected office on the assumption that future elections will revert to the status quo.”).
“[W]e cannot ignore elections in which minority candidates make breakthroughs in winning elected office on the assumption that future elections will revert to the status quo.”
green
State of South Carolina v. United States of America (2012)
Cf. Florida v. United States, 2012 WL 3538298, at *37 (D.D.C. 2012) (“Accordingly, our grant of preclearance to the inter-county mover changes is based on our express understanding that Florida will follow its laws as written and will abide by the representations it has made to this court.”) (citations omitted).
“Accordingly, our grant of preclearance to the inter-county mover changes is based on our express understanding that Florida will follow its laws as written and will abide by the representations it has made to this court.”
green
Brown v. Detzner (2012)
See Florida v. United States, 885 F.Supp.2d 299, 308-09 , No. 1:11-cv-1428, 2012 WL 3538298, at *5 (D.D.C.
green
North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory (2016)
Rev. 439, 487 (2015) (“A voting restriction affecting more people imposes a greater burden (all other things being equal) than one which affects fewer people.”); cf. Florida, 885 F.Supp.2d at 340 (“[Wjhile the number of affected voters will have an impact on the burden analysis ... a voting change with a retrogressive effect does not warrant preclearance merely because it affects a small number of voters.”).
“[Wjhile the number of affected voters will have an impact on the burden analysis ... a voting change with a retrogressive effect does not warrant preclearance merely because it affects a small number of voters.”
green
Veasey v. Perry (2014)
Frank v. Walker, 17 F.Supp.3d 837, 881-83, 885-86 (E.D.Wis.), rev’d, 768 F.3d 744 (7th Cir.2014); Florida v. United States, 885 F.Supp.2d 299, 324-30, 365-68 (D.D.C.2012); Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 4:05-CV-0201-HLM, 2007 WL 7600409, at *14 (N.D.Ga.
green
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (2023)
Many of Legislators’ arguments to the 17 contrary—for example, that Plaintiffs do not “need” to access the requested documents 18 (Doc. 202 at 8-9)—bear more on the availability of other evidence than relevance. 19 Although Legislators are correct that “[t]he purpose of a single legislator is normally too 20 slim a reed upon which to rest a determination regarding the legislature as a whole,” Fla. 21 v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299, 354 (D.D.C. 2012), the fact that sta…
green
Davis v. Guam (2017)
For example, in Florida v. United States, 10 the district court noted that the legislator’s sole statement “is the only statement to which the 11 defendants point as evidencing a discriminatory purpose on the part of the Florida legislature.” 12 885 F.Supp.2d 299, 354 (D.D.C.
See Florida v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299, 337 , 351 USCA11 Case: 22-11143 Document: 193-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2023 Page: 14 of 79 14 Opinion of the Court 22-11143 (D.D.C. 2012).
See Florida v. United States, 885 F.Supp.2d 299 (D.D.C.2012).
Apr. 28, 2025); see also Florida v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299 , 13 354 (D.D.C. 2012).