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.

Hill Vs. Davis

Hill vs Davis

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-22-1964
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100826

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. 565
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

Hill

Respondent

Davis

Excerpt

hill v. davis - 378 u.s. 565 (1964) u.s. supreme court hill v. davis, 378 u.s. 565 (1964) 378 u.s. 565 hill, auditor of clarke county, iowa, et al. v. davis et al. appeal from the united states district court for the southern district of iowa. no. 1079. decided june 22, 1964. judgment affirmed and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with views stated in reynolds v. sims, 377 u.s. 533 . reported below: 225 f. supp. 689. ward reynoldson for appellants. robert f. wilson for appellees. per curiam. the judgment below is affirmed. 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, should that become necessary. since this appeal presents no question as to the correctness of the district court's later decision upholding the validity of the temporary reapportionment plan enacted by the iowa general assembly in february 1964, we do not consider or pass upon this matter. mr. justice clark would affirm on the grounds stated in his opinion in reynolds v. sims, 377 u.s. 533, 587 . mr. justice stewart would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that iowa's system of legislative apportionment violates the equal protection clause. 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. 565, 566

Full Judgment

HILL v. DAVIS - 378 U.S. 565 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court HILL v. DAVIS, 378 U.S. 565 (1964) 378 U.S. 565

HILL, AUDITOR OF CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA, ET AL. v. DAVIS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
IOWA. No. 1079.
Decided June 22, 1964.

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

Reported below: 225 F. Supp. 689.

Ward Reynoldson for appellants.

Robert F. Wilson for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment below is affirmed. 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, should that become necessary. Since this appeal presents no question as to the correctness of the District Court's later decision upholding the validity of the temporary reapportionment plan enacted by the Iowa General Assembly in February 1964, we do not consider or pass upon this matter.

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

MR. JUSTICE STEWART would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that Iowa's system of legislative apportionment violates the Equal Protection Clause.

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. 565, 566



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial