Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Clark Vs. Roemer

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 03, 1991

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

35 entries 5 linked 30 unlinked
Show
  1. Hathorn Vs. Lovorn US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1982
  2. Connor Vs. Waller US Supreme Court · Jun 05, 1975
  3. Perkins Vs. Matthews US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1971
  4. MccaIn Vs. Lybrand US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1984
  5. Berry Vs. Doles US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1978
  6. U.S. 646 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Clark v. Roemer
    Search
  7. U.S. 646 (1991) Clark v. Roemer
    Search
  8. valid objections. Section 5 requires preclearance. Without it, a voting change will not be effective as law, Connor v. Waller
    Search
  9. U. S. 656 , and is unenforceable, Hathorn v. Lovorn
    Search
  10. are entitled to an injunction prohibiting a State from implementing changes that have not been precleared, Allen v. State
    Search
  11. applied to judges in 1986, Haith v. Martin
    Search
  12. Court's decisions dealing with the ex post question whether to set aside illegal elections, see, e.g., Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  13. was not cured by the Attorney General's preclearance of later, or related, voting changes. McCain v. Lybrand
    Search
  14. of the Voting Rights Act. League of the United Latin American Citizens Council No. 444 v. Clements
    Search
  15. in part and enjoined the elections for the judgeships that the District Court conceded were uncleared. Clark v. Roemer
    Search
  16. pursuant to one of these two methods. Connor v. Waller
    Search
  17. U. S. 656 (1975) (per curiam). See also United States v. Board
    Search
  18. plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction prohibiting the State from implementing the changes. Allen v. State
    Search
  19. to judges was uncertain until our summary affirmance in Brooks v. Georgia
    Search
  20. State Board of Elections, 775 F.Supp. 1470, aff'd, 498 U.S. 916 (1990). But in Haith v. Martin
    Search
  21. a number of our decisions, including Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  22. U. S. 379 (1971), NAACP v. Hampton
    Search
  23. County Election Commission, 470 U. S. 166 (1985), Berry v. Doles
    Search
  24. U. S. 190 (1978), and Georgia v. United
    Search
  25. for preclearance, United States v. Sheffield
    Search
  26. even though the Attorney General now objects to the earlier changes. This ruling conflicts with our decision in McCain v. Lybrand
    Search
  27. U.S. at 457 U. S. 270 , quoting Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  28. U.S. Supreme Court Clark v. Roemer
    Search
  29. Allen v. State
    Search
  30. Haith v. Martin
    Search
  31. United States v. Board
    Search
  32. Brooks v. Georgia
    Search
  33. NAACP v. Hampton
    Search
  34. and Georgia v. United
    Search
  35. United States v. Sheffield
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial