Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Connor Vs. Coleman

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 26, 1979

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

61 entries 7 linked 54 unlinked
Show
  1. Connor Vs. Williams US Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1972
  2. Connor Vs. Finch US Supreme Court · May 31, 1977
    Distinguished
  3. Chapman Vs. Meier US Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1975
  4. Kirkpatrick Vs. Preisler US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1969
  5. Wells Vs. Rockefeller US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1969
  6. Connor Vs. Waller US Supreme Court · Jun 05, 1975
  7. Perkins Vs. Matthews US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1971
  8. U.S. 612 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Connor v. Coleman
    Search
  9. U.S. 612 (1979) Connor v. Coleman
    Search
  10. of the Mississippi Legislature. In the most recent of the Court's decisions in this extended litigation, Connor v. Finch
    Search
  11. in the District of Columbia litigation. If upheld, the statutory plan would supersede any court-ordered one. See Wise v. Lipscomb
    Search
  12. Mississippi Legislature. Our consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus is continued for 30 days. See Connor v. Coleman
    Search
  13. plaintiffs successfully challenged the extreme population variances of the existing legislative apportionment. Connor v. Johnson
    Search
  14. elections. Under the plan, 34 of the 52 house districts and 10 of the 36 senate districts were multimember. See Connor v. Finch
    Search
  15. which authorized multimember representation for most house districts and almost half of the senate districts. Connor v. Johnson
    Search
  16. because they more closely reflect voter preferences, Connor v. Johnson
    Search
  17. not institute single-member districts, because it found that the difficulties were, in fact, insurmountable. Connor v. Johnson
    Search
  18. Ibid. (emphasis added). Despite our instructions, no Special Master was appointed. See Connor v. Coleman
    Search
  19. of Chapman v. Meier
    Search
  20. of state legislatures, the District Court further delayed its decision for the expected legislative action. Connor v. Waller
    Search
  21. Id. at 1332. Page 440 U. S. 617 In June, 1975, this Court summarily and unanimously reversed. Connor v. Waller
    Search
  22. of the Voting Rights Act. Ibid. Relying on the unambiguous holdings of Allen v. State
    Search
  23. Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544 (1969), and Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  24. U.S. at 393 U. S. 558 -561. Georgia v. United
    Search
  25. Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  26. plan challenged by the Attorney General. And, once again, despite our admonitions in Connor Page 440 U. S. 618 v. Johnson
    Search
  27. U.S. at 402 U. S. 692 , and Connor v. Williams
    Search
  28. App. to Pet. for Mandamus in Connor v. Coleman
    Search
  29. further deliberations until this Court decided three pending cases involving reapportionment issues. See Connor v. Coleman
    Search
  30. and our strong suggestion in Connor v. Williams
    Search
  31. enter final judgment implementing the settlement plan. At a hearing on November 29, 1978, the court, relying on Wise v. Lipscomb
    Search
  32. added). The court therefore set no deadlines for disposition of the plans before it. When counsel observed that Connor v. Finch
    Search
  33. purely on the authority of Wise v. Lipscomb
    Search
  34. course of this litigation, Connor v. Finch
    Search
  35. procrastination are as unfounded as those it has previously invoked to evade its judicial responsibilities. Wise v. Lipscomb
    Search
  36. provides no excuse for ignoring our express directive in Connor v. Finch
    Search
  37. But this was no novel legal principle. Indeed, the District Court had relied on a similar statement in Chapman v. Meier
    Search
  38. imminence of a state election makes it impractical for them to do so, it becomes the 'unwelcome obligation,' Connor v. Finch
    Search
  39. Reply Brief for Petitioners 2 n. 2. I believe that the District Court's reliance on Wise v. Lipscomb
    Search
  40. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United
    Search
  41. States, 279 U. S. 781 , 279 U. S. 785 (1929). Accord, United States v. Haley
    Search
  42. two of eighty-four house districts and 14 of 39 senate districts were multimember. Brief for United States in Connor v. Coleman
    Search
  43. The three cases were United Jewish Organization v. Carey
    Search
  44. U. S. 144 (1977), Beer v. United
    Search
  45. States, 425 U. S. 130 (1976), and East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall
    Search
  46. Of course, legislative apportionments are entitled to greater deference than court-ordered plans. Connor v. Finch
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Connor v. Coleman
    Search
  48. See Wise v. Lipscomb
    Search
  49. See Connor v. Coleman
    Search
  50. See Connor v. Finch
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial