Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Voinovich Vs. Quilter

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 08, 1992

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

34 entries 4 linked 30 unlinked
Show
  1. Brown Vs. Thomson US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1983
  2. Growe Vs. Emison US Supreme Court · Nov 02, 1992
  3. Thornburg Vs. Gingles US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1986
  4. Chapman Vs. Meier US Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1975
  5. U.S. 146 (1992) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Voinovich, Governor of Ohio, Et Al. V. Quilter
    Search
  6. first place. Pp. 154-157. (c) The District Court, had it applied the three-part vote-dilution test of Thornburg v. Gingles
    Search
  7. should consider whether the deviations from ideal district size are justified using the analysis employed in Brown v. Thomson
    Search
  8. U. S. 835 , 843-846, and Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  9. This is yet another dispute arising out of legislative redistricting and reapportionment. See, e. g., Growe v. Emison
    Search
  10. U. S. Const., Amdt. 15. See NAACP v. New
    Search
  11. the ability of a protected class to elect its candidate of choice on an equal basis with other voters. Thornburg v. Gingles
    Search
  12. Growe, ante, at 34 (quoting Chapman v. Meier
    Search
  13. U. S. 1 , 27 (1975)). Accord, Connor v. Finch
    Search
  14. quoting Reyn olds v. Sims
    Search
  15. to respect the States' apportionment choices unless those choices contravene federal requirements. Cf. Katzenbach v. Morgan
    Search
  16. App. to Juris. Statement 141a. Again we disagree. In Thornburg v. Gingles
    Search
  17. in fact, we never have held any legislative apportionment inconsistent with the Fifteenth Amendment. Beer v. United
    Search
  18. Its finding of intentional discrimination was clearly erroneous. See Mobile v. Bolden
    Search
  19. the Fifteenth Amendment and race-conscious redistricting. Cf. United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey
    Search
  20. Brown, supra, at 843 (quoting Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  21. a policy of preserving the boundaries of political subdivisions. Our case law is directly to the contrary. See Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  22. see also Brown v. Thomson
    Search
  23. Syllabus Voinovich, Governor of Ohio, Et Al. V. Quilter
    Search
  24. of Thornburg v. Gingles
    Search
  25. and Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  26. See NAACP v. New
    Search
  27. Accord, Connor v. Finch
    Search
  28. Cf. Katzenbach v. Morgan
    Search
  29. In Thornburg v. Gingles
    Search
  30. the Fifteenth Amendment. Beer v. United
    Search
  31. See Mobile v. Bolden
    Search
  32. Cf. United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey
    Search
  33. See Mahan v. Howell
    Search
  34. Mahan v. Howell
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial