Citation network
Mcdaniel Vs. Sanchez
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 01, 1981
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
-
U.S. 130 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court McDaniel v. SanchezSearch
-
U.S. 130 (1981) McDaniel v. SanchezSearch
-
of the Act is applicable. Pp. 452 U. S. 137 -153. (a) The statement in East Carroll Parish School Board v. MarshallSearch
-
the existing apportionment of its electoral districts is unconstitutional. Relying on East Carroll Parish School Board v. MarshallSearch
-
Relying on Wise v. LipscombSearch
-
identified in our prior cases. We then review our decisions in East Carroll Page 452 U. S. 137 and Wise v. LipscombSearch
-
legislative history. I Texas and its political subdivisions are covered by the Voting Rights Act. Briscoe v. BellSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Georgia v. UnitedSearch
-
motivated by a discriminatory purpose and will not have an adverse impact on minority voters. See, e.g., City of Rome v. UnitedSearch
-
of new legislative apportionment plans that are adopted without judicial direction or approval. See Georgia v. UnitedSearch
-
does not apply to plans prepared and adopted by a federal court to remedy a constitutional violation. See Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
Chapman v. MeerSearch
-
districts and may result in greater population disparities than would be permitted in a court-ordered plan. See Connor v. FinchSearch
-
U. S. 407 , 431 U. S. 414 -415. Cf. Mahan v. HowellSearch
-
inclusion of a multimember district in the reapportionment plan under review. In East Carroll Parish School Board v. MarshallSearch
-
of the Voting Rights Act would clearly have been required. Connor v. WallerSearch
-
do not apply. Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
Moreover, our subsequent decision in Wise Page 452 U. S. 142 v. LipscombSearch
-
East Carroll addressed the Voting Rights Act, it must be narrowly limited to its particular facts. In Wise v. LipscombSearch
-
plan for purposes of the application of the presumption against multimember districts. However, relying upon Burns v. RichardsonSearch
-
in response to invalidation of the prior plan by a federal court, will not be considered 'effective as law,' Connor v. FinchSearch
-
until clearance has been obtained, should a court address the constitutionality of the new measure. Connor v. FinchSearch
-
its decree, and because the Act does not require the District Court to have its decisions precleared, see Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
on a plan presented by a litigant. This is the limited meaning of the 'court decree' exception recognized in Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
body subsequently adopts a plan patterned after the court's plan, Section 5 review would be required, Connor v. WallerSearch
-
is to be given a broad construction. See, e.g., Dougherty County Board of Education v. WhiteSearch
-
United States v. SheffieldSearch
-
the statute is not dependent on a showing that the county's proposed plan is defective in any way. Cf. United States v. BoardSearch
-
As JUSTICE POWELL pointed out in Wise v. LipscombSearch
-
f)(3). As a result of this amendment, Texas and its political subdivisions became covered jurisdictions. See Briscoe v. BellSearch
-
Court's order denying a preliminary injunction and remanded for reconsideration in the light of its decision in Lister v. CommissionersSearch
-
It is fair to say that the opinions in East Carroll and Wise v. LipscombSearch
-
In our prior decisions construing the Act, we have described in detail the preclearance procedures. See, e.g., Allen v. StateSearch
-
See Zimmer v. McKeithenSearch
-
the Dallas City Council are distinguishable from those of the local governing body in East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. MarshallSearch
-
case, the legislative history of that extension is of particular relevance. See Dougherty County Board of Education v. WhiteSearch
-
had been properly applied by the District Court in Gaillard v. YoungSearch
-
South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
Allen v. StateSearch
-
U.S. at 437 U. S. 539 (opinion of WHITE, J.). See also Chapman v. MeierSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court McDaniel v. SanchezSearch
-
East Carroll Parish School Board v. MarshallSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial