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.

Nolan Vs. Rhodes

Nolan vs Rhodes

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-22-1964
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100818

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. 556
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nolan

Respondent

Rhodes

Excerpt

nolan v. rhodes - 378 u.s. 556 (1964) u.s. supreme court nolan v. rhodes, 378 u.s. 556 (1964) 378 u.s. 556 nolan v. rhodes, governor of ohio, et al. appeal from the united states district court for the southern district of ohio. no. 454. decided june 22, 1964. * judgment reversed and cases remanded. reported below: 218 f. supp. 953. [ footnote * ] together with no. 455, sive et al. v. ellis et al., also on appeal from the same court. kenneth g. weinberg and stewart r. jaffy for appellant in no. 454. william b. saxbe, attorney general of ohio, and hugh a. sherer for appellees in no. 454. jerome goldman, robert p. goldman and harris weston for appellants in no. 455. william b. saxbe, attorney general of ohio, gerald a. donahue, first assistant attorney general, and john j. chester for appellees in no. 455. per curiam. the judgment below is reversed. reynolds v. sims, 377 u.s. 533 . the cases are remanded for further proceedings 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. mr. justice clark would reverse on the grounds stated in his opinion in reynolds v. sims, 377 u.s. 533, 587 . mr. justice stewart would affirm the judgment because the ohio system of legislative apportionment is page 378 u.s. 556, 557 clearly a rational one and clearly does not frustrate effective majority rule. mr. justice harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in reynolds v. sims, 377 u.s. 533, 589 .

Full Judgment

NOLAN v. RHODES - 378 U.S. 556 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court NOLAN v. RHODES, 378 U.S. 556 (1964) 378 U.S. 556

NOLAN v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO. No. 454.
Decided June 22, 1964. *

Judgment reversed and cases remanded.

Reported below: 218 F. Supp. 953.

[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 455, Sive et al. v. Ellis et al., also on appeal from the same court.

Kenneth G. Weinberg and Stewart R. Jaffy for appellant in No. 454.

William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, and Hugh A. Sherer for appellees in No. 454.

Jerome Goldman, Robert P. Goldman and Harris Weston for appellants in No. 455.

William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, Gerald A. Donahue, First Assistant Attorney General, and John J. Chester for appellees in No. 455.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 . The cases are remanded for further proceedings 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.

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

MR. JUSTICE STEWART would affirm the judgment because the Ohio system of legislative apportionment is

Page 378 U.S. 556, 557

clearly a rational one and clearly does not frustrate effective majority rule.

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