Citation network
Hunter Vs. Erickson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 20, 1969
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. 385 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Hunter v. EricksonSearch
-
U.S. 385 (1969) Hunter v. EricksonSearch
-
invalid under state law, but the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed, State ex rel. Hunter Page 393 U. S. 388 v. EricksonSearch
-
moot by the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub.L. 90-284, 82 Stat. 73, the decision of this Court in Jones v. AlfredSearch
-
considered in Jones should be read together with the later statute on the same subject, United States v. StewartSearch
-
to defer. We therefore reject the contention that this case is moot. Akron argues that this case is unlike Reitman v. MulkeySearch
-
be bothersome, but no more than that. Like the law requiring specification of candidates' race on the ballot, Anderson v. MartinSearch
-
process. This is no more permissible than denying them the vote, on an equal basis with others. Cf. Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Avery v. MidlandSearch
-
Strauder v. WestSearch
-
Korematsu v. UnitedSearch
-
than other classifications, McLaughlin v. FloridaSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor does the implementation of this change through popular referendum immunize it. Lucas v. ColoradoSearch
-
may dilute any person's vote or give any group a smaller representation than another of comparable size. Cf. Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
Burton v. WilmingtonSearch
-
permitted to stand unless it can be supported by state interests of the most weighty and substantial kind. McLaughlin v. FloridaSearch
-
constitution, or they may lose if the constitution adopts a position of strict neutrality on the question. See Reitman v. MulkeySearch
-
than is required in the normal case. McLaughlin v. FloridaSearch
-
the Court wants the Page 393 U. S. 397 States to retain. Of course, the Court, under the ruling of Marbury v. MadisonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hunter v. EricksonSearch
-
Jones v. AlfredSearch
-
United States v. StewartSearch
-
Anderson v. MartinSearch
-
Cf. Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
Lucas v. ColoradoSearch
-
Cf. Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
See Reitman v. MulkeySearch
-
of Marbury v. MadisonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial