Citation network
MccaIn Vs. Lybrand
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 21, 1984
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. 236 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court McCain v. LybrandSearch
-
U.S. 236 (1984) McCain v. LybrandSearch
-
entered judgment in favor of appellants on the malapportionment claim, but that judgment was reversed on appeal. Lytle v. CommissionersSearch
-
of Election, 376 F.Supp. 304 (SC), rev'd, 509 F.2d 1049, 1032 (CA4), cert. denied sub nom. McCain v. LybrandSearch
-
vacated the judgment and ordered further proceedings in light of this Court's intervening decision in City of Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
of the Fifteenth Amendment for nearly a century by state officials in certain parts of the Nation. South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
Beer v. UnitedSearch
-
South Carolina Page 465 U. S. 246 v. KatzenbachSearch
-
interpreted in light of its prophylactic purpose and the historical experience which it reflects. See, e.g., McDaniel v. SanchezSearch
-
for preclearance established by the Act, United States v. SheffieldSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Allen v. StateSearch
-
Georgia v. UnitedSearch
-
changes are not motivated by a discriminatory purpose and will not have an adverse impact on minority voters, McDaniel v. SanchezSearch
-
Whitley v. WilliamsSearch
-
decided with Allen v. StateSearch
-
United States v. SheffieldSearch
-
U. S. 256 whether a particular change was actually precleared in analogous circumstances, see United States v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Blanding v. DuboseSearch
-
have been satisfied, and (3) if the requirements have not been satisfied, what relief is appropriate. Lockhart v. UnitedSearch
-
question must be initially decided by the District Court for the District of Columbia or the Attorney General. Perkins v. MatthewsSearch
-
the only jurisdiction to comply rigorously with the preclearance requirement in the early years of the Act. Perkins v. MatthewsSearch
-
evaluated the purpose and effect of those changes in the context of the entire electoral scheme. See Lockhart v. UnitedSearch
-
submission would not constitute preclearance of elements in the scheme that were not submitted. As we stated in Morris v. GressetteSearch
-
United State v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court McCain v. LybrandSearch
-
Lytle v. CommissionersSearch
-
of the Nation. South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
the Act, United States v. SheffieldSearch
-
United States v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Lockhart v. UnitedSearch
-
the Attorney General. Perkins v. MatthewsSearch
-
of the Act. Perkins v. MatthewsSearch
-
See Lockhart v. UnitedSearch
-
McDaniel v. SanchezSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial