Citation network
Fortson Vs. Toombs
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 18, 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
-
U.S. 621 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Fortson v. ToombsSearch
-
U.S. 621 (1965) Fortson v. ToombsSearch
-
remanded. PER CURIAM. The District Court, having held that the Georgia Legislature was malapportioned ( Toombs v. FortsonSearch
-
part of the decree and remand to the District Court, to whom we give a wide range in moulding a decree ( United States v. CrescentSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
International Boxing Club of New York v. UnitedSearch
-
accordance with Article XIII, Section I, Article 1, of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, 1945. ( See Hammond v. ClarkeSearch
-
post, pp. 379 U. S. 638 -639), but not depriving the question of the attribute of justiciability. Cf. Young v. UnitedSearch
-
See Labor Board v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. InterstateSearch
-
of one who is harmed or is currently threatened with harm caused by the allegedly unconstitutional action. See Stearns v. WoodSearch
-
within the traditional bounds of concrete, live controversies, actively pressed by real adverse parties. See Fortson v. DorseySearch
-
questions unless it is necessary to do so to preserve the rights of the parties. See Liverpool, N.Y. & P. S.S. Co. v. CommissionersSearch
-
Ashwander v. TennesseeSearch
-
Coffman v. BreezeSearch
-
the effect such judgments might have Page 379 U. S. 633 upon future actions in similar circumstances. Little v. BowersSearch
-
California v. SanSearch
-
newly elected legislature or some future one will submit a wholly new constitution to the voters. Cf. Bus Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
of the legislature's future conduct would undoubtedly render this issue unripe for adjudication. See New Jersey v. SargentSearch
-
Arizona v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Electric Bond & Share Co. v. SECSearch
-
Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdorySearch
-
the order was entered makes the issue in this appeal, in my view, similarly unsuitable for adjudication. United States v. AlaskaSearch
-
them. It also will remove any precedential effect of the opinion of the District Court on this issue. United States v. MunsingwearSearch
-
Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. WellmanSearch
-
United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
See American Woodpaper Co. v. HeftSearch
-
South Spring Hill Gold Page 379 U. S. 635 Mining Co. v. AmadorSearch
-
Mining Co., 145 U. S. 300 . The situation in this case is a far cry from that presented in Bus Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
become highly problematical that the conduct which underlay the controversy would be repeated. In Federal Trade Comm'n v. GoodyearSearch
-
J. I. Case Co. v. LaborSearch
-
will repeat conduct they consider illegal. The case is therefore much more closely analogous to United States v. AlaskaSearch
-
Thus, this portion of the slate would be wiped clean, United States v. MunsingwearSearch
-
the jurisdiction of the District Court to enter its modified order while appeal is pending in this Court, see Schempp v. SchoolSearch
-
San Mateo County v. SouthernSearch
-
Bus Employees v. WisconsinSearch
-
of this determination and the propriety of the District Court's having made it. See Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. CitySearch
-
See Baker v. CarrSearch
-
See United States v. AlaskaSearch
-
See San Mateo County v. SouthernSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial