Citation network
Abrams Vs. Johnson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 1997
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
-
U.S. 74 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Abrams Et Al. V. JohnsonSearch
-
here a second time, appeal now being taken from the District Court's rulings and determinations on remand after Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
unconstitutional. pp.79-101. (a) The trial court did not exceed its remedial power under the general rule of Upham v. SeamonSearch
-
Together with No. 95-1460, United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
A plaintiff seeking to establish such dilution must, inter alia, meet three requirements set forth in Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise. Beer v. UnitedSearch
-
standards in fashioning such a plan, McDaniel v. SanchezSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
ever in effect, and thus none could operate as a benchmark under the Attorney General's regulations and, e. g., Holder v. HallSearch
-
achieve that provision's goal of population equality with little more than de minimis variation, e. g., Chapman v. MeierSearch
-
e. g., the desire to respect municipal boundaries and to preserve the cores of prior districts, Karcher v. DaggettSearch
-
us a second time, appeal now being taken from the trial court's rulings and determinations after our remand in Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
The trial court found this district, too, was improperly drawn under the standards we confirmed in Miller. Johnson v. MillerSearch
-
to Georgia's Legislature, but the legislature could not reach agreement. The court then drew its own plan, Johnson v. MillerSearch
-
right to equal protection. The private appellants attack the court's plan on five grounds. First, citing Upham v. SeamonSearch
-
appellants' argument that the court exceeded the remedial power authorized by our decisions, particularly Upham v. SeamonSearch
-
redistricting guideline should be the three majority-black districts of the precleared plan at issue in Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
and later the trial court-attempted to draw the districts. A Much of the history is recounted in Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
gerrymander in the lines of the Eleventh District, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause as interpreted in Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
U. S. 630 (1993). The District Court panel found the district invalid, with one judge dissenting. Johnson v. MillerSearch
-
We affirmed. Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
one vote. B Given this background, appellants say, the District Court's plan violates our direction in Upham v. SeamonSearch
-
plan. In support of their position, appellants rely on broad assertions in the State's brief in this Court in Johnson v. MillerSearch
-
Brief for Miller Appellants in Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
b). Our decision in Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
we have since extended the framework to single-member districts. Growe 91 v. EmisonSearch
-
concluded it was well founded. If race is the predominant motive in creating districts, strict scrutiny applies, Bush v. VeraSearch
-
Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
Beer v. UnitedSearch
-
such that it must be precleared. Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
the court by the legislature of a covered jurisdiction in response to a determination of unconstitutionality. McDaniel v. SanchezSearch
-
b)(1) (1996). See also Holder v. HallSearch
-
Reno v. BossierSearch
-
subdivisions alone was not enough to justify less than perfect deviation in a court plan. See, e. g., Kirkpatrick v. PreislerSearch
-
in Karcher. These equitable considerations disfavor requiring yet another reapportionment to correct the deviation. V TheSearch
-
is just over 1.7 million, or about 27 percent of a total voting age population of about 6.5 million. See Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
District Court, inter alia, drew up a new redistricting plan with one majorityminority district. Johnson v. MillerSearch
-
plans. A two-district plan is not unconstitutional. And the District Court here, like the District Court in Upham v. SeamonSearch
-
Id., at 41 (quoting White v. WeiserSearch
-
After the 1990 Census, which increased the size of Georgia's congressional delegation from 10 to 11, App. in Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
ante, at 86 (quoting Brief for Appellants Miller et al. in Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
Johnson v. MillerSearch
-
p. 16, and likely reflected departmental concern related to Georgia's voting discrimination history. See Busbee v. SmithSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial