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.

Marshall Vs. Hare

Marshall vs Hare

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-22-1964
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100822

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. 561
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Marshall

Respondent

Hare

Excerpt

marshall v. hare - 378 u.s. 561 (1964) u.s. supreme court marshall v. hare, 378 u.s. 561 (1964) 378 u.s. 561 marshall et al. v. hare, secretary of state of michigan, et al. appeal from the united states district court for the eastern district of michigan. no. 962. decided june 22, 1964. judgment reversed and case remanded. reported below: 227 f. supp. 989. theodore sachs for appellants. robert a. derengoski, solicitor general of michigan, stanton s. faville, chief assistant attorney general, and james r. ramsey and russell a. searl, assistant attorneys general, for hare et al.; and edmund e. shepherd and r. william rogers for beadle et al., appellees. per curiam. the judgment below is reversed. reynolds v. sims, 377 u.s. 533 ; lucas v. forty-fourth general assembly of colorado, 377 u.s. 713 . the case is 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 and mr. justice stewart would affirm the judgment because the michigan system of legislative apportionment is 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 . page 378 u.s. 561, 562

Full Judgment

MARSHALL v. HARE - 378 U.S. 561 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court MARSHALL v. HARE, 378 U.S. 561 (1964) 378 U.S. 561

MARSHALL ET AL. v. HARE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN. No. 962.
Decided June 22, 1964.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

Reported below: 227 F. Supp. 989.

Theodore Sachs for appellants.

Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General of Michigan, Stanton S. Faville, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and James R. Ramsey and Russell A. Searl, Assistant Attorneys General, for Hare et al.; and Edmund E. Shepherd and R. William Rogers for Beadle et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 ; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713 . The case is 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 and MR. JUSTICE STEWART would affirm the judgment because the Michigan system of legislative apportionment is 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 .

Page 378 U.S. 561, 562



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial