Citation network
Burns Vs. Richardson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 25, 1966
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. 73 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Burns v. RichardsonSearch
-
U.S. 73 (1966) Burns v. RichardsonSearch
-
here. They alleged that Hawaii's legislative apportionment was unconstitutional under our decisions in Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
This apportionment scheme was first attacked in the Supreme Court of Hawaii within a month after we decided Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
proceedings should await legislative proposals for a constitutional amendment or a constitutional convention. Guntert v. RichardsonSearch
-
Haw. 662, 394 P.2d 444. Compare Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
on that island from two to five. It was not contended that the apportionment failed to meet the standard of Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Court concluded that, as a matter of state law, the house and senate apportionment plans were severable. Compare Lucas v. ColoradoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
General Assembly, 377 U. S. 713 , 377 U. S. 735 . Even so, Maryland Committee v. TawesSearch
-
Our decision in Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Fortson v. DorseySearch
-
U. S. 433 . Where the requirements of Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
that a particular multi-member scheme effects an invidious result must appear from evidence in the record. Cf. McGowan v. MarylandSearch
-
The holding in Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Indeed, in WMCA, Inc. v. LomenzoSearch
-
Page 384 U. S. 92 no different from apportionments using a total population measure. Neither in Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
constitutionally founded reason to interfere. Unless a choice is one the Constitution forbids, cf., e.g., Carrington v. RashSearch
-
the resulting apportionment base offends no constitutional bar, and compliance with the rule established in Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Ellis v. MayorSearch
-
Together with No. 323, Cravalho et al. v. RichardsonSearch
-
et al., and No. 409, Abe et al. v. RichardsonSearch
-
U. S. 695 , and Lucas v. ColoradoSearch
-
itself had authority under state law to adopt an interim apportionment plan, in view of the decision in Guntert v. RichardsonSearch
-
view that use of the method of equal proportions itself saved the plan from constitutional challenge based on Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
April 28, 1965. Notices of appeal were filed May 3 and 7, 1965. Whether judged by the date of entry, United States v. HarkSearch
-
in the decision of February 17 was not finally made effective until the decision of April 28, United States v. CrescentSearch
-
that the limitations were suggested by the legislators themselves. Nevertheless, consistently with Maryland Committee v. TawesSearch
-
E.g., WMCA, Inc. v. LomenzoSearch
-
In Davis v. MannSearch
-
Carrington v. RashSearch
-
Buckley v. HoffSearch
-
Such a restriction, if imposed by a State, would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Carrington v. RashSearch
-
in the result. Because judicial responsibility requires me, as I see things, to bow to the authority of Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
other kind of a population apportionment. MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring in the judgment. At the time Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Lucas v. ColoradoSearch
-
changed my views. I still believe the Court misconceived the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause in Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Burns v. RichardsonSearch
-
Guntert v. RichardsonSearch
-
Compare Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
of Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Compare Lucas v. ColoradoSearch
-
Cf. McGowan v. MarylandSearch
-
and Lucas v. ColoradoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial