Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mahan Vs. Howell

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 21, 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

67 entries 7 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Kirkpatrick Vs. Preisler US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1969
    Relied / Followed
  2. Roman Vs. Sincock US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  3. Reynolds Vs. Sims US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  4. Wells Vs. Rockefeller US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1969
  5. Wesberry Vs. Sanders US Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1964
  6. Abate Vs. Mundt US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1971
    Relied / Followed
  7. Fortson Vs. Dorsey US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1965
  8. U.S. 315 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  9. U.S. 315 (1973) Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  10. that both houses of a bicameral state legislature be apportioned substantially on a population basis ( Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  11. on official census tracts, was constitutionally impermissible discrimination against military personnel, cf. Davis v. Mann
    Search
  12. enjoined the holding of elections in electoral districts other than those established by the court's opinion. Howell v. Mahan
    Search
  13. Fairfax County, was allotted 10 delegates but was divided into two five-member districts. Relying on Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
    Search
  14. U. S. 526 (1969), Wells v. Rockefeller
    Search
  15. U. S. 542 (1969), and Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  16. within passable constitutional limits as a good faith effort to achieve absolute equality.' Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
    Search
  17. Howell v. Mahan
    Search
  18. F.Supp. at 1147-1148. Appellants contend that the District Court's reliance on Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
    Search
  19. supra, and Wells v. Rockefeller
    Search
  20. Assembly's reapportionment plan was erroneous, and that proper application of the standards enunciated in Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  21. supra, would have resulted in a finding that the statute was constitutional. In Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
    Search
  22. and Wells v. Rockefeller
    Search
  23. The express purpose of these cases was to elucidate the standard first announced in the holding of Wesberry v. Sanders
    Search
  24. both houses of a bicameral state legislature to be apportioned substantially on a population basis in Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  25. Id. at 394 U. S. 579 . By contrast, the Court in Wesberry v. Sanders
    Search
  26. the Equal Protection Clause in state legislative redistricting because of the considerations enumerated in Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  27. supra. The dichotomy between the two lines of cases has consistently been maintained. In Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
    Search
  28. along existing political subdivision boundaries. This argument was rejected in the congressional context. But in Abate v. Mundt
    Search
  29. make applicable to congressional reapportionment, but instead by the equal protection test enunciated in Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  30. State's policy of maintaining the integrity of political subdivision lines -- is not a new one to this Court. In Davis v. Mann
    Search
  31. the legislative plan was constitutionally invalid. Howell v. Mahan
    Search
  32. County, a result that this Court might we'll have been thought to disfavor as a result of its opinion in Connor v. Johnson
    Search
  33. language used in Wesberry v. Sanders
    Search
  34. supra, and Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  35. has heretofore been imposed upon an apportionment plan for a state legislature by this Court was enunciated in Swann v. Adams
    Search
  36. legislative reapportionment plans that have been struck down by previous decisions of this Court. See, e.g., Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  37. and Kilgarlin v. Hill
    Search
  38. and reverse the District Court's conclusion Page 410 U. S. 330 to the contrary. We also affirm Weinberg v. Prichard
    Search
  39. of the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Districts, encompassing the city of Norfolk and a portion of Virginia Beach. Howell v. Mahan
    Search
  40. discriminatory treatment of military personnel in legislative reapportionment is constitutionally impermissible, Davis v. Mann
    Search
  41. of interim remedial techniques in voting rights cases has largely been left to the district courts. Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  42. filing deadline for primary candidates. Prior to the time the court acted, this Court had handed down Whitcomb v. Chavis
    Search
  43. Clause. The court conscientiously considered both the legislative policy and this Court's admonition in Connor v. Johnson
    Search
  44. mandate of this Court that voting discrimination against military personnel is constitutionally impermissible, Davis v. Mann
    Search
  45. Together with No. 71-373, City of Virginia Beach v. Howell
    Search
  46. et al., on appeal from the same court, and No. 71-444, Weinberg v. Prichard
    Search
  47. in certain metropolitan areas. Between his interposition and the trial of these cases, this Court decided Whitcomb v. Chavis
    Search
  48. The Court initially noted probable jurisdiction in the related case of Thornton v. Prichard
    Search
  49. In Connor v. Williams
    Search
  50. it did not consider two counties because of their asserted isolation from the remainder of the State. Howell v. Mahan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial