Citation network
Holder Vs. Hall
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 30, 1994
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
-
Holder, Individually and in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner for Bleckley County, Georgia, Et Al. V. HallSearch
-
Rights Act of 1965, finding that respondents satisfied only one of the three preconditions established in Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
given to a ballot duly cast and counted are simply beyond the purview of the Act. The decision in Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
framework established in Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
for the Eleventh Circuit reversed on the statutory claim. Relying on its decision in Carrollton Branch of NAACP v. StallingsSearch
-
see Presley v. EtowahSearch
-
City of Lockhart v. UnitedSearch
-
City of Rome v. UnitedSearch
-
It is true that in Chisom v. RoemerSearch
-
Beer v. UnitedSearch
-
This conclusion is quite unremarkable. For example, in Perkins v. MatthewsSearch
-
boundaries dilute a racial group's voting strength in comparison to the proposed new boundaries. Likewise, in McCain v. LybrandSearch
-
see also Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
See, e. g., Presley v. EtowahSearch
-
Bunton v. PattersonSearch
-
decided with Allen v. StateSearch
-
Indeed, the similarity in language led to our conclusion in Chisom v. RoemerSearch
-
of the Nation. Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
mathematical formula based on voter registration and brought under the Equal Protection Clause. See, e. g., White v. RegesterSearch
-
in Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
R. Niemi, Minority Representation and the Quest for Voting Equality 22 (1992). The Court's decision in Allen v. StateSearch
-
Id., at 567. Thus, in Fairley v. PattersonSearch
-
U. S. 186 , 300 (1962) (dissenting opinion). See also Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
strength and as a remedial mechanism for guaranteeing minorities undiluted voting power. See, e. g., Growe v. EmisonSearch
-
Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
whether a 3 At that time, seven States elected their congressional delegations on a statewide ticket. See Wesberry v. SandersSearch
-
districts. See, e. g., Voinovich v. QuilterSearch
-
See also League of United Latin American Citizens v. MidlandSearch
-
the correlation to assume that racial groups have unique political interests. 12 Cf. Citizens for a Better Gretna v. GretnaSearch
-
Overton v. AustinSearch
-
for determining cohesion in vote dilution cases. See id., at 539. But cf. League of United Latin American Citizens v. ClementsSearch
-
United States v. DallasSearch
-
Hays v. LouisianaSearch
-
nized, geographic districting is not a requirement inherent in our political system. See, e. g., Davis v. BandemerSearch
-
thereby avoiding government involvement in a process of segregating the electorate. Cane v. WorcesterSearch
-
a), as when interpreting any statute, we should begin with the statutory language. See Connecticut Nat. Bank v. GermainSearch
-
indeed, it would be a mistake to do so. Cf. United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. TimbersSearch
-
to items belonging to the same class that is defined by the more specific terms in the list. See, e. g., Cleveland v. UnitedSearch
-
The general terms in the section are most naturally understood, therefore, to refer to 19 Cf. South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial