Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Johnson Vs. De Grandy

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Oct 04, 1993

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

69 entries 14 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. California Vs. Rooney US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1987
  2. Allen Vs. Mccurry US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1980
  3. Growe Vs. Emison US Supreme Court · Nov 02, 1992
  4. Perkins Vs. Matthews US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1971
  5. Connor Vs. Finch US Supreme Court · May 31, 1977
  6. Thornburg Vs. Gingles US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1986
  7. Powers Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1991
  8. Wright Vs. Rockefeller US Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1964
  9. United Jewish Organizations Vs. Carey US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1977
  10. Gomillion Vs. Lightfoot US Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1960
  11. MccaIn Vs. Lybrand US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1984
  12. Voinovich Vs. Quilter US Supreme Court · Dec 08, 1992
  13. Shaw Vs. Reno US Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1993
  14. Plessy Vs. Ferguson US Supreme Court · May 18, 1896
  15. and Thornburg v. Gingles
    Search
  16. Together with No. 92-593, De Grandy et al. v. Johnson
    Search
  17. United States v. Florida
    Search
  18. Florida's congressional districts, but that element of the litigation has been resolved separately, see De Grandy v. Wetherell
    Search
  19. the Voting Rights Act of 1965). Five Florida counties, but not Dade County, are subject to preclearance. De Grandy v. Wetherell
    Search
  20. than one), if SJR 2-G had not fragmented each group among several districts or packed it into just a few. De Grandy v. Wetherell
    Search
  21. and Thornburg v. Gin
    Search
  22. U. S. 307 , 311 (1987) (per curiam) (quoting Black v. Cutter
    Search
  23. court gives no greater preclusive effect to a state-court judgment than the state court itself would do, Marrese v. American
    Search
  24. s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
    Search
  25. Rooker v. Fidelity
    Search
  26. s argument takes us back to ground covered last Term in two cases challenging single-member districts. See Voinovich v. Quilter
    Search
  27. Id., at 40 (quoting Thornburg v. Gingles
    Search
  28. that racial gerrymanders have played a central role in discrimination against minority groups, see Gomillion v. Lightfoot
    Search
  29. But the assumption was erroneous, and more is required, as a review of Gingles will show. 1 Thornburg v. Gingles
    Search
  30. statute to reach cases in which discriminatory intent is not identified, adding new language designed to codify White v. Regester
    Search
  31. In Baird v. Consolidated
    Search
  32. springs from the demonstrated ingenuity of state and local governments in hobbling minority voting power, McCain v. Lybrand
    Search
  33. Congress thus endorsed our view in White v. Regester
    Search
  34. if offset by political gerrymandering in the other half, so long as proportionality was the bottom line. But see Baird v. Consolidated
    Search
  35. Richmond v. United
    Search
  36. b). v. There
    Search
  37. or that majority-white districts elect only white representatives, is false as an empirical matter. See Voinovich v. Quilter
    Search
  38. Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC
    Search
  39. see also United Jewish Organizations of Wi lliams burgh, Inc. v. Carey
    Search
  40. within the meaning of the statute. Voinovich v. Quilter
    Search
  41. some account of whether the number of majority-minority districts falls short of a statistical norm. Cf. Washington v. Davis
    Search
  42. impact relevant to allegation of intentional discrimination). Both the majority and concurring opinions in Thornburg v. Gingles
    Search
  43. only construe the statute, and 1029 do not purport to assess its constitutional implications. See Chisom v. Roemer
    Search
  44. entrench the very practices and stereotypes the Equal Protection Clause is set against. See Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC
    Search
  45. and are presumed invalid. Shaw v. Reno
    Search
  46. see also Plessy v. Ferguson
    Search
  47. claims were brought here, and the Court's opinion does not address any constitutional issues. Cf. Voinovich v. Quilter
    Search
  48. its judgment. JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting. For the reasons I explain in Holder v. Hall
    Search
  49. States Reports. 1034 JUNE 13, 1994 Certiorari Granted-Vacated and Remanded No. 93-428. LIVINGSTONE V. DONAHEY
    Search
  50. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Key Tronic Corp. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial