Citation network
Richardson Vs. Ramirez
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1974
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 24 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Richardson v. RamirezSearch
-
U.S. 24 (1974) Richardson v. RamirezSearch
-
and respondents, whose continuing controversy in the State Supreme Court still continues in this Court. Brockington v. RhodesSearch
-
Ramirez v. BrownSearch
-
Cal.3d at 203, 507 P.2d at 1347. In addition to California cases, the court cited Roe v. WadeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 113 (1973), and Goosby v. OsserSearch
-
Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. HaworthSearch
-
them permanently bound by its conclusion on a matter of federal constitutional law. Cf. North Dakota Pharmacy Bd. v. Snyder'sSearch
-
or controversy remains than in other election cases in which we have addressed the question of mootness. Unlike Moore v. OgilvieSearch
-
U. S. 814 (1969), in which the particular candidacy was not apt to be revived in a future election, or Hall v. BealsSearch
-
indefinitely disenfranchised by the provisions of California law which they challenge. While the situation in Moore v. OgilvieSearch
-
are thus the strongest sorts of practical arguments, as well as the language Page 418 U. S. 36 of Moore v. OgilvieSearch
-
had not. We have held that, in the federal system, one may not represent a class of which he is not a part, Bailey v. PattersonSearch
-
the right to register after the three named plaintiffs had been granted that right. Indiana Employment Security Div. v. BurneySearch
-
U. S. 40 as a party to the action in the Supreme Court of California, albeit an unnamed one. In Brockington v. RhodesSearch
-
approved exclusions of bigamists and polygamists from the franchise under territorial laws of Utah and Idaho. Murphy v. RamseySearch
-
in dicta that exclusion of convicted felons from the franchise violates no constitutional provision. In Lassiter v. NorthamptonSearch
-
Residence requirements, age, previous criminal record ( Davis v. BeasonSearch
-
judge District Courts rejecting constitutional challenges to state laws disenfranchising convicted felons. Fincher v. ScottSearch
-
F.Supp. 182 (SD Fla.), aff'd, 396 U. S. 12 (1969). Both District Courts relied on Green v. BoardSearch
-
Protection Clause require us to invalidate the disenfranchisement of felons as well. They rely on such cases as Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
U. S. 330 (1972), Bullock v. CarterSearch
-
U. S. 134 (1972), Kramer v. UnionSearch
-
Free School District, 395 U. S. 621 (1969), and Cipriano v. CitySearch
-
Court. We do not think that the Court's refusal to accept Mr. Justice Harlan's position in his dissents in Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
U. S. 533 , 377 U. S. 589 (1964), and Carrington v. RashSearch
-
of uniformity is the result of differing interpretations of the 1966 Supreme Court of California decision in Otsuka v. HiteSearch
-
before us that exercise of its original jurisdiction would be appropriate, the Supreme Court of California cited Young v. GnossSearch
-
within this Court's jurisdiction. Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. WallaceSearch
-
the relief they sought, we can only conclude that it did so on independent state law grounds. Cf. Brockington v. RhodesSearch
-
doctrine of Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICCSearch
-
U. S. 498 , 219 U. S. 515 (1911), as recently applied in Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
for looking beyond the named class members in this limited category of cases is evidenced by our decision in Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
plaintiffs moot -- threatening virtually to foreclose judicial review. A similar situation was presented in Roe v. WadeSearch
-
United States v. ConcentratedSearch
-
remedy for all forms of electoral discrimination. This Court has repeatedly rejected that rationale. See Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
remedies should be invoked. Page 418 U. S. 75 That conclusion is compelled by this Court's holding in Oregon v. MitchellSearch
-
such discriminations thus are not forever immunized from evolving standards of equal protection scrutiny. Cf. Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, has already been declared unconstitutional by this Court in Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
Dillenburg v. KramerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial