Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gaffney Vs. Cummings

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 18, 1973

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

56 entries 12 linked 44 unlinked
Show
  1. Wesberry Vs. Sanders US Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1964
  2. Kirkpatrick Vs. Preisler US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1969
    Relied / Followed
  3. Reynolds Vs. Sims US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  4. KilgarlIn Vs. Hill US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1967
  5. Davis Vs. Mann US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  6. Ely Vs. Klahr US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1971
  7. Abate Vs. Mundt US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1971
  8. Dusch Vs. Davis US Supreme Court · May 22, 1967
  9. Burns Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1966
  10. Fortson Vs. Dorsey US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1965
  11. Wells Vs. Rockefeller US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1969
  12. Gomillion Vs. Lightfoot US Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1960
  13. U.S. 735 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Gaffney v. Cummings
    Search
  14. U.S. 735 (1973) Gaffney v. Cummings
    Search
  15. In Connecticut, towns, rather than counties, are the basic unit of local government. See Butterworth v. Dempsey
    Search
  16. Id. at 148. The court relied in part on Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
    Search
  17. U.S. at 394 U. S. 531 . In Kirkpatrick and in Wells v. Rockefeller
    Search
  18. It is the standard of these cases which is the prevailing rule under Art. I and which we confirm in White v. Weiser
    Search
  19. when reviewing state legislative reapportionments under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  20. state legislative reapportionments Page 412 U. S. 742 governed by the Fourteenth Amendment and Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  21. make applicable to congressional reapportionment, but instead by the equal protection test enunciated in Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  22. be struck down absent adequate state justification. Nor had we so held in any prior state reapportionment case. Swann v. Adams
    Search
  23. U. S. 440 (1967), and Kilgarlin v. Hill
    Search
  24. think the point is well taken, and that the District Court erred in holding to the contrary. As we noted in Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  25. so far suggested. There were thus the enormous variations struck down in the early cases beginning with Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  26. as well as the much smaller, but nevertheless unacceptable, deviations appearing in later cases such as Swann v. Adams
    Search
  27. and Whitcomb v. Chavis
    Search
  28. U. S. 124 , 403 U. S. 161 -163 (1971). Page 412 U. S. 745 On the other hand, as Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  29. and legally sustainable. It is now time to recognize, in the context of the eminently reasonable approach of Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  30. aliens, nonresident military personnel, nonresident students, for example. See Burns v. Richardson
    Search
  31. factors to be taken into account and other important interests that States may legitimately be mindful of. See Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  32. Sailors v. Board
    Search
  33. U.S. at 384 U. S. 92 , is primarily a political and legislative process. Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  34. be invalid because it fences out a racial group so as to deprive them of their preexisting municipal vote. Gomillion v. Lightfoot
    Search
  35. U. S. 433 , 379 U. S. 439 (1965). See White v. Regester
    Search
  36. plan is sufficient to invalidate it. Our cases indicate quite the contrary. Page 412 U. S. 753 See White v. Regester
    Search
  37. groups have been fenced out of the political process and their voting strength invidiously minimized. See White v. Regester
    Search
  38. supra. See also Gomillion v. Lightfoot
    Search
  39. The order was entered in a parallel state proceeding, Miller v. Schaffer
    Search
  40. others, while senatorial districts could be 32 times larger than others. Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes
    Search
  41. to elect a Senate majority. See Butterworth v. Dempsey
    Search
  42. U.S. Supreme Court Gaffney v. Cummings
    Search
  43. See Butterworth v. Dempsey
    Search
  44. White v. Weiser
    Search
  45. the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  46. the Fourteenth Amendment and Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  47. and Kilgarlin v. Hill
    Search
  48. of Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  49. See Burns v. Richardson
    Search
  50. See Mahan v. Howell
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial