Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Avery Vs. Midland County

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 01, 1968

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

71 entries 6 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. Cooper Vs. Aaron US Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1958
  2. Construction Laborers Vs. Curry US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1963
    Relied / Followed
  3. Terminiello Vs. Chicago US Supreme Court · May 16, 1949
    Relied / Followed
  4. Reynolds Vs. Sims US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  5. Department of Mental Hygiene Vs. Kirchner US Supreme Court · Mar 08, 1965
  6. Rockefeller Vs. Wells US Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1967
  7. Avery v. Midland
    Search
  8. County - 390 U.S. 474 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Avery v. Midland
    Search
  9. County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968) Avery v. Midland
    Search
  10. the Fourteenth Amendment, be apportioned among single member districts of substantially unequal population. Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  11. Amendment. We granted review, 388 U.S. 905 (1967), because application of the one man, one vote principle of Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  12. In Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  13. see little difference, in terms of the application of the Equal Protection Clause and of the principles of Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  14. citizens, but only that the distinctions that are made not be arbitrary or invidious. The conclusion of Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  15. boards of component districts even though the component boards had equal votes and served unequal populations. Sailors v. Board
    Search
  16. nature of the area school board's functions and the essentially appointive form of the scheme employed. In Dusch v. Davis
    Search
  17. that population does not govern the apportionment of the Commissioners Court is before us. See Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Langdeau
    Search
  18. Radio Station WOW v. Johnson
    Search
  19. Cases in which the highest state courts applied the principles of Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  20. to units of local government include Miller v. Board
    Search
  21. Montgomery County Council v. Garrott
    Search
  22. Hanlon v. Towey
    Search
  23. Armentrout v. Schooler
    Search
  24. Seaman v. Fedourich
    Search
  25. Bailey v. Jones
    Search
  26. Sonneborn v. Sylvester
    Search
  27. Wis.2d 43, 132 N.W.2d 249 (1965). Newbold v. Osser
    Search
  28. In opposition to these cases are only the decision of the Texas Supreme Court in the case before us and Brouwer v. Bronkema
    Search
  29. of the Michigan Supreme Court divided evenly on the question. Among the many federal court cases applying Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  30. to local government are Hyden v. Baker
    Search
  31. Martinolich v. Dean
    Search
  32. Strickland v. Burns
    Search
  33. Ellis v. Mayor
    Search
  34. A precedent frequently cited in opposition to this conclusion is Tedesco v. Board
    Search
  35. the Privileges and Immunities Clause. A more realistic answer is that Tedesco, decided 12 years before Baker v. Carr
    Search
  36. by Baker and the succeeding apportionment cases. See, among the great many cases so concluding, Delozier v. Tyrone
    Search
  37. See v. City
    Search
  38. Thompson v. City
    Search
  39. wishing to deprive other citizens of equal treatment or how small the minority who object to their mistreatment. Lucas v. Colorado
    Search
  40. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae 22, n. 31, filed in Sailors v. Board
    Search
  41. This should suffice to defeat the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction. See, e.g., Department of Mental Hygiene v. Kirchner
    Search
  42. of state court judgments has been whether the judgment leaves more than a ministerial act to be done. See, e.g., Pope v. Atlantic
    Search
  43. Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma
    Search
  44. the requirement of finality is an unwaivable condition of this Court's jurisdiction, see, e.g., Market St. R. Co. v. Railroad
    Search
  45. only because the Court has done so, I consider this decision, which extends the state apportionment rule of Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  46. thought by some to justify the profound break with history that was made in 1962 by this Court's decision in Baker v. Carr
    Search
  47. See the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Clark in Baker v. Carr
    Search
  48. to which an apportionment may take into account population changes which occur between decennial censuses. Cf. Lucas v. Rhodes
    Search
  49. of this writer). Another is the degree of population variation which is constitutionally permissible. See Swann v. Adams
    Search
  50. Rockefeller v. Wells
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial