Citation network
Wright Vs. Rockefeller
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 17, 1964
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
-
U.S. 52 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Wright v. RockefellerSearch
-
U.S. 52 (1964) Wright v. RockefellerSearch
-
was either motivated by racial considerations or in fact drew the districts on racial lines. Compare Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
conflicting inferences are drawn from evidence offered by the plaintiff, or by the defendant, or by both. Hernandez v. TexasSearch
-
these districts on the basis of race and place of origin. Hernandez followed the rule laid down in Norris v. AlabamaSearch
-
See Wesberry v. SandersSearch
-
E.g., Pierre v. LouisianaSearch
-
Smith v. TexasSearch
-
Hill v. TexasSearch
-
The case is thus, in my opinion, governed by entirely different constitutional considerations, see Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
U. S. 339 , than those which I believe Page 376 U. S. 59 should govern in Wesberry v. SandersSearch
-
DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG concurs, dissenting. This case raises a question kin to that in Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Racial segregation that is state-sponsored should be nullified whatever may have been intended. In Johnson v. VirginiaSearch
-
See NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 461 , and cases cited. What the State has done is often conclusive irrespective of motive. Eubanks v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 584 , 356 U. S. 587 -588. I had assumed that, since Brown v. BoardSearch
-
one important public area -- as important as schools, parks, and courtrooms. We should uproot all vestiges of Plessy v. FergusonSearch
-
theory of Plessy v. FergusonSearch
-
a theory that has been used before. A like argument was made in Buchanan v. WarleySearch
-
in District of Columbia v. ThompsonSearch
-
in Watson v. MemphisSearch
-
of delayed integration of municipal parks. Indeed, the final argument of John W. Davis for South Carolina in Brown v. BoardSearch
-
that District B must be represented by a Caucasian, District C by a Jew, District D by a Catholic, and so on. Cf. Gray v. SandersSearch
-
But government has no business designing electoral districts along racial or religious lines. We held in Akins v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 398 , 325 U. S. 403 , and in Brown v. AllenSearch
-
In Anderson v. MartinSearch
-
of Turks v. GreeksSearch
-
racial segregation in legislative districting as well as in voting and in public schools and facilities. E.g., Brown v. BoardSearch
-
Johnson v. VirginiaSearch
-
Watson v. CitySearch
-
Goss v. BoardSearch
-
Anderson v. MartinSearch
-
Cf. Lane v. WilsonSearch
-
Hirabayashi v. UnitedSearch
-
or other specific harm to individual complainants is irrelevant. I understand the Court's decisions since Brown v. BoardSearch
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Wright v. RockefellerSearch
-
Compare Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
Hernandez v. TexasSearch
-
Norris v. AlabamaSearch
-
In Johnson v. VirginiaSearch
-
Eubanks v. LouisianaSearch
-
Brown v. BoardSearch
-
of Plessy v. FergusonSearch
-
District of Columbia v. ThompsonSearch
-
Watson v. MemphisSearch
-
Cf. Gray v. SandersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial