Citation network
Rogers Vs. Lodge
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 01, 1982
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. 613 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Rogers v. LodgeSearch
-
U.S. 613 (1982) Rogers v. LodgeSearch
-
appellees' Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights. Id. at 71a, 96a. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Lodge v. BuxtonSearch
-
CA5 1981). It stated that, while the proceedings in the District Court took place prior to the decision in Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
U. S. 158 -159 (1971), this Court has repeatedly held that they are not unconstitutional per se. Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
by minimizing, canceling out or diluting the voting strength of racial elements in the voting population. Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
supra, at 403 U. S. 149 . See also White v. RegesterSearch
-
minorities are thus subject to the standard of proof generally applicable to Equal Protection Clause cases. Washington v. DavisSearch
-
U. S. 229 (1976), and Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
Washington v. DavisSearch
-
that racially discriminatory purpose or intent be proved applies to voting cases by relying upon, among others, Wright v. RockefellerSearch
-
Page 458 U. S. 618 Arlington Heights and Washington v. DavisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Arlington Heights, supra, at 429 U. S. 266 . In Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
Bolden v. MobileSearch
-
U.S. at 446 U. S. 66 , quoting Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
U.S. at 446 U. S. 66 , and White v. RegesterSearch
-
The District Court had analyzed plaintiffs' claims in light of the standard which had been set forth in Zimmer v. McKeithenSearch
-
F.2d 1297 (CA5 1973), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. MarshallSearch
-
gleaned from Page 458 U. S. 620 Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
supra, and White v. RegesterSearch
-
the wrong legal standard. Not only was the District Court's decision rendered a considerable time after Washington v. DavisSearch
-
and Arlington Heights, but the trial judge also had the benefit of Nevett v. SidesSearch
-
F.2d 209 (1978), where the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit assessed the impact of Washington v. DavisSearch
-
F.2d at 224 (footnote omitted). The District Court referred to Nevett v. SidesSearch
-
was being maintained for the invidious purpose of diluting the voting strength of the black population. In White v. RegesterSearch
-
Columbus Board of Education v. PenickSearch
-
U. S. 468 (1979) (BURGER, C.J., concurring in judgment). Our recent decision in Pullman-Standard v. SwintSearch
-
has frequently noted its reluctance to disturb findings of fact concurred in by two lower courts. See, e.g., Berenyi v. InformationSearch
-
Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. LindeSearch
-
in Burke County, the fact that none have ever been elected is important evidence of purposeful exclusion. See White v. RegesterSearch
-
to participate in the political processes and to elect candidates of their choice. United Jewish Organizations v. CareySearch
-
U.S. at 403 U. S. 149 -150. See also Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
of intentional discrimination. The supporting evidence was organized primarily around the factors which Nevett v. SidesSearch
-
had deemed relevant to the issue of intentional discrimination. These factors were primarily those suggested in Zimmer v. McKeithenSearch
-
enhance the tendency of multimember districts to minimize the voting strength of racial minorities. See Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
been maintained for the purpose of denying blacks equal access to the political processes in the county. As in White v. RegesterSearch
-
U. S. 267 , 433 U. S. 282 (1977) (emphasis deleted), quoting Milliken v. BradleySearch
-
treatment. Absent such purpose, differential impact is subject only to the test of rationality. Washington v. DavisSearch
-
Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
governing body of a parish (county) unconstitutionally diluted black voting strength. East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. MarshallSearch
-
U. S. 636 (1976). JUSTICE POWELL, with whom JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, dissenting. I Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Rogers v. LodgeSearch
-
Lodge v. BuxtonSearch
-
and Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
Wright v. RockefellerSearch
-
Arlington Heights and Washington v. DavisSearch
-
In Mobile v. BoldenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial