Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Carrington Vs. Rash

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 01, 1965

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

32 entries 6 linked 26 unlinked
Show
  1. Pope Vs. Williams US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1904
  2. MclaughlIn Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Dec 07, 1964
  3. United States Vs. Classic US Supreme Court · May 26, 1941
  4. Gray Vs. Sanders US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  5. Heiner Vs. Donnan US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1932
  6. Reynolds Vs. Sims US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  7. U.S. 89 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Carrington v. Rash
    Search
  8. U.S. 89 (1965) Carrington v. Rash
    Search
  9. Texas has unquestioned power to impose reasonable residence restrictions of the availability of the ballot. Pope v. Williams
    Search
  10. Lassiter v. Northampton
    Search
  11. County Bd. of Elections, 360 U. S. 45 , 360 U. S. 50 . Compare United States v. Classic
    Search
  12. Court has often said, does not of itself deprive a group of equal protection. Williamson Page 380 U. S. 93 v. Lee
    Search
  13. they, as all other qualified residents, have a right to an equal opportunity for political representation. Cf. Gray v. Sanders
    Search
  14. Schneider v. New
    Search
  15. of remaining within the State, Harrison v. Chesshir
    Search
  16. the election officials may look to the actual facts and circumstances. Stratton v. Hall
    Search
  17. Robinson v. Robinson
    Search
  18. casually deprive a class of individuals of the vote because of some remote administrative benefit to the State. Oyama v. California
    Search
  19. In Mabry v. Davis
    Search
  20. hold. In making this holding, the Court totally ignores, as it did in last Term's reapportionment cases, Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  21. Equal Protection Clause was not intended to touch state electoral matters. See my dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  22. None of the cases on which the Court does rely lends any support to its decision. In Pope v. Williams
    Search
  23. U.S. at 193 U. S. 632 -633. Lassiter v. Northampton
    Search
  24. U.S. at 360 U. S. 53 . (Emphasis added.) Gray v. Sanders
    Search
  25. election for the nomination of a United States Senator. It did not deal with voter qualifications. United States v. Classic
    Search
  26. U.S. Supreme Court Carrington v. Rash
    Search
  27. Compare United States v. Classic
    Search
  28. Cf. Gray v. Sanders
    Search
  29. the State, Harrison v. Chesshir
    Search
  30. Stratton v. Hall
    Search
  31. the State. Oyama v. California
    Search
  32. In Pope v. Williams
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial