Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ely Vs. Klahr

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 07, 1971

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

64 entries 8 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Oregon Vs. Mitchell US Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1970
  2. Williams Vs. Rhodes US Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1968
  3. Reynolds Vs. Sims US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  4. Kirkpatrick Vs. Preisler US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1969
  5. Burns Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1966
  6. Drueding Vs. Devlin US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1965
    Relied / Followed
  7. Jenness Vs. Fortson US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1971
  8. Socialist Labor Party Vs. Gilligan US Supreme Court · May 30, 1972
    Relied / Followed
  9. U.S. 108 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Ely v. Klahr
    Search
  10. U.S. 108 (1971) Ely v. Klahr
    Search
  11. we affirm the judgment of the District Court. In April, 1964, shortly before this Court's decision in Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  12. Klahr v. Goddard
    Search
  13. and Congress. It ordered those elections to be held in accordance with its own 1966 plan, as supplemented. Klahr v. Williams
    Search
  14. thereafter. The court properly concluded that this plan was invalid under Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
    Search
  15. U. S. 526 (1969), and Wells v. Rockefeller
    Search
  16. to serve the 1970 election, whose preliminary preparations were to begin in a few weeks. Klahr v. Williams
    Search
  17. and the intervening decisions of this Court in Kirkpatrick and Wells, supra, and Burns v. Richardson
    Search
  18. can become law where, as here, sufficient signatures against the bill are filed with the Secretary of State. See Klahr v. Williams
    Search
  19. Though we noted in Burns v. Richardson
    Search
  20. E.g., Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  21. and American Indians. In light of our disposition of this case, we need only advert to our admonition in Burns v. Richardson
    Search
  22. The District Court also retained jurisdiction of the cause. 313 F.Supp. 148. Since Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  23. lifted a year later on the showing that the literacy tests had not been used in a discriminatory manner. Apache County v. United
    Search
  24. As of last fall, Yuma County was subject to the literacy test ban of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. See Oregon v. Mitchell
    Search
  25. end. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concurs in the result upon the premises set forth in his separate opinions in Whitcomb v. Chavis
    Search
  26. and Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  27. which is defined, inter alia, to include literacy. This part of the Act was upheld in Oregon v. Mitchell
    Search
  28. upheld the requirement, and we heard oral argument after the election was over. The case was dismissed as moot. Hall v. Beals
    Search
  29. U. S. 45 . Durational residency requirements have come before the Court several times this Term. In Hayes v. Lieutenant
    Search
  30. came up for consideration on the merits, again after the election, it was dismissed as moot, 401 U.S. 968. In Sirak v. Brown
    Search
  31. Court denied an injunction, 400 U.S. 809, the plaintiff chose not to docket his appeal, probably on the basis of Hall v. Beals
    Search
  32. supra. A similar issue was present in Fitzpatrick v. Board
    Search
  33. Chicago, where we denied a motion to expedite the appeal, 401 U.S. 905. Had all the lower courts followed Drueding v. Devlin
    Search
  34. requirements. This avoids the mootness issue, and we have noted probable jurisdiction in one such case, Ellington v. Blumstein
    Search
  35. U.S. 934. In Beller v. Kirk
    Search
  36. relief was denied by individual Justices early in October, but the case has subsequently been docketed sub nom. Beller v. Askew
    Search
  37. No. 1360. We have heard oral argument on the same issue in Jenness v. Fortson
    Search
  38. By that decision, several sections of the Ohio laws were invalidated, and we noted probable jurisdiction. Gilligan v. Sweetenham
    Search
  39. U.S. 991. A loyalty oath was upheld, and we noted probable jurisdiction in that case. Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan
    Search
  40. upheld a provision requiring independent candidates to file at the same time as major party candidates. Sweetenham v. Gilligan
    Search
  41. No. 790. A similar issue is also presented in Pratt v. Begley
    Search
  42. Chicago election in April, 1971, also presented cases where one of the parties needed immediate action. In Jackson v. Ogilvie
    Search
  43. S. 904 , and there was no way the case could be heard prior to the election. Through all these cases, Williams v. Rhodes
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court Ely v. Klahr
    Search
  45. Klahr v. Williams
    Search
  46. and Wells v. Rockefeller
    Search
  47. and Burns v. Richardson
    Search
  48. the Secretary of State. See Klahr v. Williams
    Search
  49. Since Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  50. Apache County v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial