Citation network
Baker Vs. Carr
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 26, 1962
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 186 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Baker v. CarrSearch
-
U.S. 186 (1962) Baker v. CarrSearch
-
Hart v. KeithSearch
-
U. S. 678 , 327 U. S. 682 . See also Binderup v. PatheSearch
-
Davis v. HildebrantSearch
-
legislation, we reviewed the constitutional merits of the legislation and reversed the State Supreme Court. Smiley v. HolmSearch
-
S. 355 . And see companion cases from the New York Court of Appeals and the Missouri Supreme Court, Koenig v. FlynnSearch
-
a Mississippi redistricting act, we reviewed the federal questions on the merits and reversed the District Court. Wood v. BroomSearch
-
concerning a Kentucky redistricting act was Page 369 U. S. 202 reviewed and the decree reversed. Mahan v. HumeSearch
-
The appellees refer to Colegrove v. GreenSearch
-
and Bell v. HoodSearch
-
inconsistent with the professed willingness to turn the decision on either the majority or concurring views in Wood v. BroomSearch
-
by the Court in summary per curiam statements. None was dismissed for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter. Cook v. FortsonSearch
-
Turman v. PageSearch
-
Colegrove v. BarrettSearch
-
Tedesco v. BoardSearch
-
Remmey v. SmithSearch
-
Cox v. PetersSearch
-
Anderson v. JordanSearch
-
Kidd v. McCanlessSearch
-
Radford v. GarySearch
-
Hartsfield v. SloanSearch
-
Matthews v. HandleySearch
-
likewise plainly imply that the subject matter of this suit is within District Court jurisdiction. In MacDougall v. GreenSearch
-
the judgment after a review of the merits and concluded that the particular claim there was without merit. In South v. PetersSearch
-
Liverpool Steamship Co. v. CommissionersSearch
-
And Colegrove v. GreenSearch
-
as a right secured by the Constitution when such impairment resulted from dilution by a false tally, cf. United States v. ClassicSearch
-
or by a refusal to count votes from arbitrarily selected precincts, cf. United States v. MosleySearch
-
Leser v. GarnettSearch
-
In holding that the subject matter of this suit was not justiciable, the District Court relied on Colegrove v. GreenSearch
-
therefore not foreclosed by our decisions of cases involving that clause. The District Court misinterpreted Colegrove v. GreenSearch
-
Snowdell v. HughesSearch
-
then a court can construe a treaty, and may find it provides the answer. Compare Terlinden v. AmesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial