Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Perkins Vs. Matthews

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 14, 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

39 entries 4 linked 35 unlinked
Show
  1. Reynolds Vs. Sims US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  2. Udall Vs. Tallman US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1965
  3. Gomillion Vs. Lightfoot US Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1960
  4. South Carolina Vs. Katzenbach US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1966
  5. U.S. 379 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  6. U.S. 379 (1971) Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  7. for by a 1962 Mississippi statute, the 1965 Canton election was by wards. A single District Judge, relying on Allen v. State
    Search
  8. judge court misconceived the permissible scope of its inquiry into appellants' allegations. Our decision in Allen v. State
    Search
  9. the case of Allen versus State
    Search
  10. and such potential inheres in a change in the composition of the electorate affected by an annexation. Gomillion v. Lightfoot
    Search
  11. Page 400 U. S. 390 In Fairley v. Patterson
    Search
  12. can be affected by a dilution of voting power as well as by an absolute prohibition on casting a ballot. See Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  13. Congress intended to adopt the concept of voting articulated in Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  14. Fairley v. Patterson
    Search
  15. from ward to at-large elections of all aldermen was, of course, a change within the coverage of the Act. Fairley v. Patterson
    Search
  16. date. Ordinarily we presume that officials will act in accordance with law. See First National Bank of Albuquerque v. Albright
    Search
  17. Allen v. State
    Search
  18. In its amicus brief filed in this Court in Fairley v. Patterson
    Search
  19. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring in the judgment. Given the decision in Allen v. State
    Search
  20. could constitutionally require a State to submit all changes in its laws for federal approval, cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach
    Search
  21. The legislative history of the Voting Rights Act was examined in the majority opinion and a separate opinion in Allen v. State
    Search
  22. election law and to reach matters such as annexations, which affect voting only incidentally and peripherally. Fairley v. Patterson
    Search
  23. Act differently seems to me to give too much weight to the passing remark of an Assistant Attorney General. Cf. Allen v. State
    Search
  24. II Fairley v. Patterson
    Search
  25. a hearing at which they may address themselves to the issue. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting. In South Carolina v. Katzenbach
    Search
  26. I have stated my belief, in dissents in Katzenbach and Allen v. State
    Search
  27. city of Canton to comply with such an order. For the reasons set out above and in my dissents in South Carolina v. Katzenbach
    Search
  28. supra, and Allen v. State
    Search
  29. iven the decision in Allen v. State
    Search
  30. U.S. Supreme Court Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  31. of Allen v. State
    Search
  32. In Fairley v. Patterson
    Search
  33. See Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  34. of the Act. Fairley v. Patterson
    Search
  35. See First National Bank of Albuquerque v. Albright
    Search
  36. Assistant Attorney General. Cf. Allen v. State
    Search
  37. In South Carolina v. Katzenbach
    Search
  38. Katzenbach and Allen v. State
    Search
  39. and Allen v. State
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial