Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Morris Vs. Gressette

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 20, 1977

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

62 entries 8 linked 54 unlinked
Show
  1. Abbott Laboratories Vs. Gardner US Supreme Court · May 22, 1967
  2. Barlow Vs. Collins US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1970
  3. South Carolina Vs. Katzenbach US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1966
  4. Perkins Vs. Matthews US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1971
  5. United Jewish Organizations Vs. Carey US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1977
  6. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park Vs. Volpe US Supreme Court · Mar 02, 1971
  7. Connor Vs. Waller US Supreme Court · Jun 05, 1975
    Relied / Followed
  8. Tooahnippah Vs. Hickel US Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1970
  9. U.S. 491 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Gressette
    Search
  10. U.S. 491 (1977) Morris v. Gressette
    Search
  11. jurisdiction and allowed South Carolina 30 days to enact an acceptable substitute reapportionment plan. Twiggs v. West
    Search
  12. in Twiggs v. West
    Search
  13. Harper v. Kleindienst
    Search
  14. to interpose an objection on the ground that he was constrained to defer to the ruling of the District Court in Twiggs v. West
    Search
  15. of Columbia District Court directed the Attorney General to consider Act 1205 without regard to the decision in Twiggs v. West
    Search
  16. issues. Harper v. Levi
    Search
  17. of the Voting Rights Act. See Allen v. State
    Search
  18. estoppel did not preclude it from considering South Carolina's contention that, notwithstanding the decision in Harper v. Levi
    Search
  19. of the Attorney General's initial determination to defer to the ruling of the three-judge District Court in Twiggs v. West
    Search
  20. of the reapportionment plan. Since that objection was interposed pursuant to the District Court's order in Harper v. Kleindienst
    Search
  21. U.S. at 397 U. S. 166 . See Association of Data Processing Service Orgs. v. Camp
    Search
  22. Switchmen v. National
    Search
  23. procedure, Allen v. State
    Search
  24. legislation conforms to the Constitution and to the provisions of the Voting Rights Act. See South Carolina v. Katzenbach
    Search
  25. Allen v. State
    Search
  26. of the extraordinary federal remedy beyond the period specified in the statute. Switchmen v. National
    Search
  27. of the newly enacted legislation or voting regulation. Cf. Dunlop v. Bachowski
    Search
  28. inadequacy of private suits under the Fifteenth Amendment that prompted Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act. Allen v. State
    Search
  29. to run for a single, numbered post, and specified that primary elections be decided by a majority vote. See Harper v. Levi
    Search
  30. The constitutionality of this procedure was upheld in South Carolina v. Katzenbach
    Search
  31. It has been held applicable when a State or political subdivision adopts a legislative reapportionment plan. Beer v. United
    Search
  32. Georgia v. United
    Search
  33. See South Carolina v. Katzenbach
    Search
  34. City of Richmond v. United
    Search
  35. Beer v. United
    Search
  36. statutory period, since the submission on Act 932 was not considered to be complete until January 5, 1972. See Georgia v. United
    Search
  37. provisions of Act 932 calling for multimember districts, numbered posts, and a majority vote in primaries. See Harper v. Levi
    Search
  38. This Court summarily affirmed the decision of the District Court. Powell v. West
    Search
  39. This Court held in Connor v. Waller
    Search
  40. for which preclearance is not required. East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall
    Search
  41. in the State. See Harper v. Levi
    Search
  42. numbered posts for the State's House of Representatives. See n 6, supra. The District Court in Twiggs v. West
    Search
  43. East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall
    Search
  44. it is unnecessary for this Court to reach the issue of reviewability, since the single-judge District Court in Harper v. Kleindienst
    Search
  45. the time until the Attorney General acted or until further order of the District Court. Relying on United States v. Mine
    Search
  46. of Act 1205. Here, the validity of the District Court's interlocutory order in Harper v. Kleindienst
    Search
  47. Accord, Dunlop v. Bachowski
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Gressette
    Search
  49. Twiggs v. West
    Search
  50. Harper v. Levi
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial