Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Thornburg Vs. Gingles

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 30, 1986

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

67 entries 6 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Burns Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1966
  2. Zuber Vs. Allen US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1969
  3. Fortson Vs. Dorsey US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1965
  4. Graves Vs. Barnes US Supreme Court · Feb 07, 1972
  5. Pullman-standard Vs. Swint US Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1982
  6. City of Mobile Vs. Bolden US Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1980
  7. U.S. 30 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Thornburg v. Gingles
    Search
  8. U.S. 30 (1986) Thornburg v. Gingles
    Search
  9. was amended, largely in response to Mobile v. Bolden
    Search
  10. The amendment was largely a response to this Court's plurality opinion in Mobile v. Bolden
    Search
  11. applied by this Court in White v. Regester
    Search
  12. disputed districts. In light of this conclusion, the court did not reach appellees' constitutional claims. Gingles v. Edmisten
    Search
  13. First and foremost, the Report dispositively rejects the position of the plurality in Mobile v. Bolden
    Search
  14. plaintiffs must prove it. Id. at 33. B V OTE
    Search
  15. U.S. Page 478 U. S. 48 73, 384 U. S. 88 (1966) (quoting Fortson v. Dorsey
    Search
  16. U. S. 433 , 379 U. S. 439 (1965)). See also Rogers v. Lodge
    Search
  17. large election schemes, however, are not per se violative of minority voters' rights. S.Rep. at 16. Cf. Rogers v. Lodge
    Search
  18. McMillan v. Escambia
    Search
  19. of the majority's success distinguishes structural dilution from the mere loss of an occasional election. Cf. Davis v. Bandemer
    Search
  20. United States v. Marengo
    Search
  21. Nevett v. Sides
    Search
  22. Johnson v. Halifax
    Search
  23. of prior discrimination such as inferior education, poor employment opportunities, and low incomes. See, e.g., White v. Regester
    Search
  24. Kirksey v. Board
    Search
  25. win Page 478 U. S. 70 election in a multimember district than in a single-member district. See, e.g., Graves v. Barnes
    Search
  26. F.Supp. 704, 720-721 (WD Tex.1972), aff'd in part and rev'd in part sub nom. White v. Regester
    Search
  27. quoting United States v. Dallas
    Search
  28. To accept this theory would frustrate the goals Congress sought to achieve by repudiating the intent test of Mobile v. Bolden
    Search
  29. Id. at 29, n. 115, quoting Zimmer v. McKeithen
    Search
  30. F.2d 1297, 1307 (CA5 1973) (en banc), aff'd sub nom. East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall
    Search
  31. District. v. ULTIMATE
    Search
  32. de novo review on appeal. In support of their proposed standard of review, they rely primarily on Bose Corp. v. Consumers
    Search
  33. of vote dilution as a question of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of Rule 52(a). See, e.g., Rogers v. Lodge
    Search
  34. City of Rome v. United
    Search
  35. U.S. at 412 U. S. 765 -770. Cf. Anderson v. Bessemer
    Search
  36. at 412 U. S. 769 -770. Quoting this passage from Regester with approval, we expressly held in Rogers v. Lodge
    Search
  37. Page 478 U. S. 79 clearly erroneous standard. 458 U.S. at 458 U. S. 622 -623. Similarly, in City of Rome v. United
    Search
  38. Rogers, supra, at 621, quoting Nevett v. Sides
    Search
  39. of the governing rule of law. Page 478 U. S. 80 466 U.S. at 466 U. S. 501 , citing Pullman-Standard v. Swint
    Search
  40. Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives
    Search
  41. The history of this action is recounted in greater detail in the District Court's opinion in this case, Gingles v. Edmisten
    Search
  42. These factors were derived from the analytical framework of White v. Regester
    Search
  43. U. S. 755 (1973), as refined and developed by the lower courts, in particular by the Fifth Circuit in Zimmer v. McKeithen
    Search
  44. F.2d 1297 (1973) (en banc), aff'd sub nom. East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall
    Search
  45. that the authoritative source for legislative intent lies in the Committee Reports on the bill. See, e.g., Garcia v. United
    Search
  46. the legal standard that governed voting discrimination cases prior to our decision in Mobile v. Bolden
    Search
  47. U. S. 55 (1980). S.Rep. at 15-16. The Report notes that, in pre- Bolden cases such as White v. Regester
    Search
  48. U. S. 755 (1973), and Zimmer v. McKeithen
    Search
  49. Blacksher & Menefee, From Reynolds v. Sims
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Thornburg v. Gingles
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial