Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lopez Vs. Monterey County

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Oct 08, 1996

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. MccaIn Vs. Lybrand US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1984
  2. Connor Vs. Waller US Supreme Court · Jun 05, 1975
  3. Upham Vs. Seamon US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1982
  4. Perkins Vs. Matthews US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1971
  5. Lopez v. Monterey
    Search
  6. County - 519 U.S. 9 (1996) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Lopez Et Al. V. Monterey
    Search
  7. s order that the County conduct elections under its unprecleared, at-large judicial election plan conflicts with Clark v. Roemer
    Search
  8. crafted a remedial electoral plan such as might render the preclearance requirements inapplicable, see McDaniel v. Sanchez
    Search
  9. and if the requirements were not satisfied, what temporary remedy, if any, is appropriate. See City of Lockhart v. United
    Search
  10. approval process in a way that the statute does not contemplate. Cf., e. g., Upham v. Seamon
    Search
  11. Koski v. James
    Search
  12. precedent, these previous consolidation ordinances do not appear to have received federal preclearance approval. Clark v. Roemer
    Search
  13. not expired by June 1995.) Shortly after the June 1995 special election, this Court issued its decision in Miller v. Johnson
    Search
  14. No new voting practice is enforceable unless the covered jurisdiction has succeeded in obtaining preclearance. Clark v. Roemer
    Search
  15. plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction prohibiting implementation of the change. Clark v. Roemer
    Search
  16. supra, at 652-653 (citing Allen v. State
    Search
  17. under the unprecleared, at-large judicial election plan conflicts with these principles and with our decision in Clark v. Roemer
    Search
  18. judicial preclearance. Id., at 655. We acknowledged in Clark that earlier decisions such as Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  19. U. S. 379 (1971), and Berry v. Doles
    Search
  20. requirements may not apply where a district court independently crafts a remedial electoral plan. McDaniel v. Sanchez
    Search
  21. provides no further remedy. Allen v. State
    Search
  22. that court lacks authority to consider the discriminatory purpose or nature of the changes. Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  23. United States v. Board
    Search
  24. approval process in a way that the statute does not contemplate. Cf. Upham v. Seamon
    Search
  25. designated by Congress. The requirement of federal scrutiny should be satisfied without further delay. See Berry v. Doles
    Search
  26. Syllabus Lopez Et Al. V. Monterey
    Search
  27. Clark v. Roemer
    Search
  28. See City of Lockhart v. United
    Search
  29. Miller v. Johnson
    Search
  30. Allen v. State
    Search
  31. and Berry v. Doles
    Search
  32. Cf. Upham v. Seamon
    Search
  33. See Berry v. Doles
    Search
  34. McDaniel v. Sanchez
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial