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.

Connor Vs. Coleman

Connor vs Coleman

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided May-21-1979
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/104598

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
441 U.S. 792
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

Connor

Respondent

Coleman

Excerpt

connor v. coleman - 441 u.s. 792 (1979) u.s. supreme court connor v. coleman, 441 u.s. 792 (1979) connor v. coleman no. 78-1013 decided may 21, 1979 441 u.s. 792 on petition for writ of mandamus syllabus a petition for writ of mandamus to require the district court to adopt a reapportionment plan for the mississippi legislature is denied where, after this court granted leave to file the petition, the district court entered a final judgment specifying a plan for reapportionment and the parties announced that there will be no appeal. per curiam. on march 26, 1979, we granted leave to petitioners to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the united states district court for the southern district of mississippi to adopt a plan for the reapportionment of the mississippi legislature. 440 u. s. 612 . the order granting leave recited that we continued for 30 days our consideration of the petition. the clerk of the district court has now formally advised the clerk of this court that, on april 13, 1979, the district court entered a final judgment specifying a court-ordered plan for the reapportionment of the legislature and for elections to be conducted in the coming summer. the district court clerk has also stated that all parties to the litigation have announced in open court that there will be no appeal. the petition for a writ of mandamus is therefore denied. so ordered. mr. justice powell took no part in the decision on this petition

Full Judgment

Connor v. Coleman - 441 U.S. 792 (1979)
U.S. Supreme Court Connor v. Coleman, 441 U.S. 792 (1979)

Connor v. Coleman

No. 78-1013

Decided May 21, 1979

441 U.S. 792

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

SYLLABUS

A petition for writ of mandamus to require the District Court to adopt a reapportionment plan for the Mississippi Legislature is denied where, after this Court granted leave to file the petition, the District Court entered a final judgment specifying a plan for reapportionment and the parties announced that there will be no appeal.

PER CURIAM.

On March 26, 1979, we granted leave to petitioners to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to adopt a plan for the reapportionment of the Mississippi Legislature. 440 U. S. 612 . The order granting leave recited that we continued for 30 days our consideration of the petition.

The Clerk of the District Court has now formally advised the Clerk of this Court that, on April 13, 1979, the District Court entered a final judgment specifying a court-ordered plan for the reapportionment of the legislature and for elections to be conducted in the coming summer. The District Court Clerk has also stated that all parties to the litigation have announced in open court that there will be no appeal.

The petition for a writ of mandamus is therefore denied.

So ordered.

MR. JUSTICE POWELL took no part in the decision on this petition

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial