Citation network
Whitcomb Vs. Chavis
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 124 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
U.S. 124 (1971) Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
judge court filed its opinion containing its findings and conclusions on July 28, 1969, holding for plaintiffs. Chavis v. WhitcombSearch
-
the legislators over the county and comprises a multi-member district for both the house and the senate. ( See Burns v. RichardsonSearch
-
any event, would have required revision in light of the 1970 census figures. III The line of cases from Gray v. SandersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 368 (1963), and Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
U. S. 533 (1964), to Kirkpatrick v. PreislerSearch
-
U. S. 526 (1969), and Wells v. RockefellerSearch
-
the quality of representation afforded by the multi-member district as compared with single member districts. In Lucas v. ColoradoSearch
-
General Assembly, 377 U. S. 713 (1964), decided with Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
presented, we held that such a district is not per se illegal under the Equal Protection Clause. Fortson v. DorseySearch
-
U. S. 120 (1967). See also Burnette v. DavisSearch
-
in striking down those contrivances that can fairly be said to infringe on Fourteenth Amendment rights. Sims v. BaggettSearch
-
Smith v. ParisSearch
-
Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
U. S. 339 (1960). See also Allen v. StateSearch
-
of Appellees (Plaintiffs) 229. Accordingly, the circumstances here lie outside the reach of decisions such as Sims v. BaggettSearch
-
same consequences on the supporters of losing candidates whose views are rejected at the polls. Page 403 U. S. 156 V TheSearch
-
by a simple requirement that some of the at-large candidates each year must reside in the ghetto. Cf. Fortson v. DorseySearch
-
in Swann v. AdamsSearch
-
was not improper for the court to order state-wide redistricting, as district courts have done from the time Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Fair Representation v. TawesSearch
-
test of Reynolds. Stout v. BottorffSearch
-
were acceptable under the Reynolds test, which has been considerably refined since that decision, see Swann v. AdamsSearch
-
The first requirement implicit in Fortson v. DorseySearch
-
and Burns v. RichardsonSearch
-
injunction had been granted or denied, we do not have jurisdiction of that appeal, and it is therefore dismissed. Gunn v. UniversitySearch
-
was not presented. In Burnette, we summarily affirmed a three-judge District Court ruling, Mann v. DavisSearch
-
an adherence to Fortson. Similarly, Harrison summarily affirmed a District Court reapportionment plan, Schaefer v. ThomsonSearch
-
Interestingly enough, in Wright v. RockefellerSearch
-
in light of Reynolds, Vermont's lower house now has 36 multi-member and 36 single member districts. Buckley v. HoffSearch
-
Kirkpatrick v. PreislerSearch
-
with prior decisions in the field of voter qualifications and reapportionment. Oregon v. MitchellSearch
-
Hadley v. JuniorSearch
-
standard of Wesberry v. SandersSearch
-
variation. Abate v. MundtSearch
-
sustains a provision that gives opponents of school bond issues half again the voting power of proponents. Gordon v. LanceSearch
-
II The Court justifies the wondrous results in these cases by relying on different combinations of factors. Abate v. MundtSearch
-
Ante at 403 U. S. 157 . Gordon v. LanceSearch
-
only marvel, therefore, that they were dismissed, singly and in combination, in a line of cases which began with Gray v. SandersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial