Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

White Vs. Regester

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

60 entries 8 linked 52 unlinked
Show
  1. Mitchell Vs. Donovan US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1970
  2. Reynolds Vs. Sims US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
    Relied / Followed
  3. Fortson Vs. Dorsey US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1965
  4. Burns Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1966
  5. Roe Vs. Wade US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1973
  6. Graves Vs. Barnes US Supreme Court · Feb 07, 1972
  7. Kirkpatrick Vs. Preisler US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1969
    Relied / Followed
  8. Abate Vs. Mundt US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1971
  9. U.S. 755 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court White v. Regester
    Search
  10. U.S. 755 (1973) White v. Regester
    Search
  11. judge court had been properly convened, and this Court can review the declaratory part of the judgment below. Roe v. Wade
    Search
  12. involved invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Cf. Gaffney v. Cummings
    Search
  13. Smith v. Craddick
    Search
  14. was eventually ordered, in light of the judicial invalidation of the House plan, to also reapportion the House. Mauzy v. Legislative
    Search
  15. A three-judge District Court sustained the Senate plan, but found the House plan unconstitutional. Graves v. Barnes
    Search
  16. a stay of the judgment of the District Court, 406 U.S. 1201, and we noted probable jurisdiction sub nom. Bullock v. Regester
    Search
  17. have directly appealed to this Court the entry of a declaratory judgment unaccompanied by any injunctive relief, Gunn v. University
    Search
  18. U. S. 427 (1970), we conclude that we have jurisdiction of the entire appeal. Roe v. Wade
    Search
  19. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Jacobsen
    Search
  20. when a substantial constitutional claim was alleged, and an appeal to us, once properly here, has the same reach. Roe v. Wade
    Search
  21. Carter v. Jury
    Search
  22. relied on Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
    Search
  23. U. S. 526 (1969), to conclude that the permissible tolerances suggested by Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  24. suggested that Abate v. Mundt
    Search
  25. violation under the Fourteenth Amendment, absent special justification, the court was in error. It is plain from Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  26. U. S. 315 (1973), and Gaffney v. Cummings
    Search
  27. are not subject to the same strict standards applicable to reapportionment of congressional seats. Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
    Search
  28. did not dilute the tolerances contemplated by Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  29. with respect to state districting, and we did not hold in Swann v. Adams
    Search
  30. U. S. 440 (1967), or Kilgarlin v. Hill
    Search
  31. U. S. 120 (1967), or Page 412 U. S. 764 later in Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  32. of the judiciary to avoid invalidation under the Equal Protection Clause. For the reasons set out in Gaffney v. Cummings
    Search
  33. unconstitutional when used in combination with single member districts in other parts of the State. Whitcomb v. Chavis
    Search
  34. Burns v. Richardson
    Search
  35. Lucas v. Colorado
    Search
  36. districts are being used invidiously to cancel out or minimize the voting strength of racial groups. See Whitcomb v. Chavis
    Search
  37. residents in the district to participate in the political processes and to elect legislators of their choice. Whitcomb v. Chavis
    Search
  38. true of the order requiring disestablishment of the multi-member district in Bexar County. Consistently with Hernandez v. Texas
    Search
  39. registration, voting, and other political activities. The District Court apparently paid due heed to Whitcomb v. Chavis
    Search
  40. appeal, we summarily affirmed that portion of the judgment of the District Court upholding the Senate plan. Archer v. Smith
    Search
  41. were not justified by a rational state policy would, in any event, require reconsideration and reversal under Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  42. in forming representative districts. The District Court recognized the policy but, without the benefit of Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  43. See Whitcomb v. Chavis
    Search
  44. S. 124 , 403 U. S. 141 -148 (1971), and the cases discussed in n. 22 of that opinion, including Kilgarlin v. Hill
    Search
  45. conclusion I am in full agreement, as I also agree with and join Part I of the Court's opinion in No. 72-147, White v. Regester
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court White v. Regester
    Search
  47. of the Equal Protection Clause. Cf. Gaffney v. Cummings
    Search
  48. the House. Mauzy v. Legislative
    Search
  49. Bullock v. Regester
    Search
  50. Gunn v. University
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial