Citation network
Hunt Vs. Cromartie
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 17, 1999
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. 541 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, Et Al. V. CromartieSearch
-
OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 98-85. Argued January 20, 1999-Decided May 17, 1999 Mter this Court decided, in Shaw v. HuntSearch
-
law warrants such scrutiny if it can be proved that the law was motivated by a racial purpose or object, Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
U. S. 900 , 913, or is unexplainable on grounds other than race, Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
complex endeavor requiring a court to inquire into all available circumstantial and direct evidence. Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
be black Democrats and even if those responsible for drawing the district are conscious of that fact. See Bush v. VeraSearch
-
compelling justification stated a claim for relief under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
further held that the State's reapportionment scheme was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. Shaw v. HuntSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
see also Cromartie v. HuntSearch
-
Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. PenaSearch
-
Shaw I, supra, at 644 (quoting Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
this case is not moot, see City of Mesquite V. Aladdin'sSearch
-
U. S. 134 ,141-142, n. 17 (1972). 2 Cf. Reno V. BossierSearch
-
Shaw I, 509 U. S. 630 , 646-647 (1993) (quoting Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. CatrettSearch
-
Anderson v. LibertySearch
-
most loyal Democrats happen to be black Democrats and even if the State were conscious of that fact. See Bush v. VeraSearch
-
Protection Clause although we were not in agreement as to the standards that would govern such a claim. See Davis v. BandemerSearch
-
note that Bush v. VeraSearch
-
U. S. 952 (1996), Shaw II, 517 U. S. 899 (1996), and Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
each came to us on a developed record and after the respective District Courts had made findings of fact. Bush v. VeraSearch
-
Johnson v. MillerSearch
-
designed by New Jersey Republicans in 1982, see Karcher v. DaggettSearch
-
U. S. 725 , 744, 762-763 (1983), and by the Indiana plan reviewed in Davis v. BandemerSearch
-
U. S. 109 , 183, 185 (1986). As we learned in Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
traditional ... districting principles.''' See Shaw v. HuntSearch
-
Miller v. JohnSearch
-
issue here, actually has an adverse impact on a particular racial group. See, e. g., Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. FeeneySearch
-
Washington v. DavisSearch
-
Hernandez v. NewSearch
-
Syllabus Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, Et Al. V. CromartieSearch
-
Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
See Bush v. VeraSearch
-
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
Cromartie v. HuntSearch
-
City of Mesquite v. Aladdin'sSearch
-
Cf. Reno v. BossierSearch
-
See Celotex Corp. v. CatrettSearch
-
See Davis v. BandemerSearch
-
and Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
Davis v. BandemerSearch
-
See Shaw v. HuntSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial