Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Abate Vs. Mundt

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

30 entries 3 linked 27 unlinked
Show
  1. Reynolds Vs. Sims US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  2. Kirkpatrick Vs. Preisler US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1969
  3. Burns Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1966
  4. U.S. 182 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Abate v. Mundt
    Search
  5. U.S. 182 (1971) Abate v. Mundt
    Search
  6. district court required that the county board submit a reapportionment plan to the Rockland County voters, Lodico v. Board
    Search
  7. on the general principle of population equality, and that this principle applies to state and local elections, Avery v. Midland
    Search
  8. S. 577 (1964), but deviations from population equality must be justified by legitimate state considerations, Swann v. Adams
    Search
  9. may need considerable flexibility in municipal arrangements if they are to meet changing societal needs, Sailors v. Board
    Search
  10. integrity of political subdivisions may justify an apportionment plan which departs from numerical equality. Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  11. will tend to favor, for example, less populous districts over their more highly populated neighbors, see Hadley v. Junior
    Search
  12. we affirm. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concurs in the result for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in Whitcomb v. Chavis
    Search
  13. the voting strength of particular racial or political elements of the Rockland County voting population, see Burns v. Richardson
    Search
  14. with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, dissenting. The Court today reaffirms all of the principles of Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  15. to me, to apply those principles to this apportionment scheme. I believe that our recent decisions in Avery v. Midland
    Search
  16. U. S. 526 (1969), and Wells v. Rockefeller
    Search
  17. may justify an apportionment plan which departs from numerical equality. Reynolds Page 403 U. S. 188 v. Sims
    Search
  18. We have done so since. In Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
    Search
  19. plan devised under these constraints is not devised in the good faith effort that the Constitution requires. In Wells v. Rockefeller
    Search
  20. Avery v. Midland
    Search
  21. U.S. Supreme Court Abate v. Mundt
    Search
  22. Lodico v. Board
    Search
  23. Sailors v. Board
    Search
  24. Hadley v. Junior
    Search
  25. of Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  26. and Wells v. Rockefeller
    Search
  27. In Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
    Search
  28. In Wells v. Rockefeller
    Search
  29. Swann v. Adams
    Search
  30. Whitcomb v. Chavis
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial