Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Meyers Vs. Thigpen

Meyers vs Thigpen

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-22-1964
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100816

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
378 U.S. 554
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Meyers

Respondent

Thigpen

Excerpt

meyers v. thigpen - 378 u.s. 554 (1964) u.s. supreme court meyers v. thigpen, 378 u.s. 554 (1964) 378 u.s. 554 meyers, secretary of state of washington, v. thigpen et al. appeal from the united states district court for the western district of washington. no. 381. decided june 22, 1964. judgment affirmed on the merits, and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with views stated in reynolds v. sims, 377 u.s. 533 . reported below: 211 f. supp. 826. john j. o'connell, attorney general of washington, philip h. austin, assistant attorney general, and lyle l. iversen, special assistant attorney general, for appellant. vincent h. d. abbey, myron l. borawick and stimson bullitt for appellees. per curiam. the judgment below is affirmed on the merits, insofar as it relates to the apportionment of seats in the washington legislature. reynolds v. sims, 377 u.s. 533 . the case is remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, consistent with the views stated in our opinions in reynolds v. sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with reynolds. since no question relating to the correctness of that part of the decision below holding valid the scheme of congressional districting in the state of washington is presented in this appeal, we do not consider or pass upon that issue. mr. justice clark would affirm on the grounds stated in his opinion in reynolds v. sims, 377 u.s. 533, 587 . page 378 u.s. 554, 555 mr. justice stewart would remand for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in lucas v. forty-fourth general assembly of colorado, 377 u.s. 713, 744 . mr. justice harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in reynolds v. sims, 377 u.s. 533, 589 .

Full Judgment

MEYERS v. THIGPEN - 378 U.S. 554 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court MEYERS v. THIGPEN, 378 U.S. 554 (1964) 378 U.S. 554

MEYERS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF WASHINGTON, v. THIGPEN ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
WASHINGTON. No. 381.
Decided June 22, 1964.

Judgment affirmed on the merits, and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with views stated in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 .

Reported below: 211 F. Supp. 826.

John J. O'Connell, Attorney General of Washington, Philip H. Austin, Assistant Attorney General, and Lyle L. Iversen, Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Vincent H. D. Abbey, Myron L. Borawick and Stimson Bullitt for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment below is affirmed on the merits, insofar as it relates to the apportionment of seats in the Washington Legislature. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 . The case is remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds. Since no question relating to the correctness of that part of the decision below holding valid the scheme of congressional districting in the State of Washington is presented in this appeal, we do not consider or pass upon that issue.

Mr. JUSTICE CLARK would affirm on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 587 .

Page 378 U.S. 554, 555

MR. JUSTICE STEWART would remand for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713, 744 .

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 589 .



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial