Citation network
Bush Vs. Gore
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 11, 2000
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. 98 (2000) October Term, 2000 Syllabus Bush Et Al. V. GoreSearch
-
may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e. g., Harper v. VirginiaSearch
-
Gore in Palm Beach County was 176 votes, and directed the Circuit Court to resolve that dispute on remand. Gore v. HarrisSearch
-
p. 1046. The proceedings leading to the present controversy are discussed in some detail in our opinion in Bush v. PalmSearch
-
the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision on remand reinstating that date. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. HarrisSearch
-
Supreme Court. Accepting jurisdiction, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Gore v. HarrisSearch
-
This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. BlackerSearch
-
arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that 105 of another. See, e. g., Harper v. VirginiaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
jurisprudence arose when a State accorded arbitrary and disparate treatment to voters in its different counties. Gray v. SandersSearch
-
constitutional violation. We relied on these principles in the context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. OgilvieSearch
-
results from the truncated contest period established by the Florida Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. HarrisSearch
-
see also Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. HarrisSearch
-
We deal here not with an ordinary election, but with an election for the President of the United States. In Burroughs v. UnitedSearch
-
Likewise, in Anderson v. CelebrezzeSearch
-
the decisions of state courts are definitive pronouncements of the will of the States as sovereigns. Cf. Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
and not just its interpretation by the courts of the States, takes on independent significance. In McPherson v. BlackerSearch
-
and if the selection process is completed six days prior to the meeting of the electoral college. As we noted in Bush v. PalmSearch
-
of the court. Though we generally defer to state courts on the interpretation of state law-see, e. g., Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
this Court to undertake an independent, if still deferential, analysis of state law. For example, in NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
Id., at 457. Six years later we decided Bouie v. CitySearch
-
be concluded by a state supreme court holding that state property law accorded the plaintiff no rights. See Lucas v. SouthSearch
-
made an independent evaluation of state law in order to protect federal treaty guarantees. In Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter'sSearch
-
Hunter v. Fairfax'sSearch
-
Cf. Boardman v. EstevaSearch
-
of election controversies. In its first decision, Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. HarrisSearch
-
Supreme Court reissued the same judgment with a new opinion on December 11, 2000, Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. HarrisSearch
-
of the contest phase. 120 although it must defer to the Secretary's interpretations, see Krivanek v. TakeSearch
-
Fla. 1993), rejected her reasonable interpretation and embraced the peculiar one. See Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. HarrisSearch
-
was, as Chief Justice Wells pointed out in his dissent in Gore v. HarrisSearch
-
should have been examined to determine voter intent. Tr. of Oral Arg. in Bush v. PalmSearch
-
cf. Broward County Canvassing Board v. HoganSearch
-
Bush v. PalmSearch
-
Supreme Court has on occasion taken over a year to resolve disputes over local elections, see, e. g., Beckstrom v. VolusiaSearch
-
of, and constrained by, their state constitutions. Lest there be any doubt, we stated over 100 years ago in McPherson v. BlackerSearch
-
cf. Smiley v. HolmSearch
-
S. Term Limits, Inc. v. ThorntonSearch
-
Article v. simplySearch
-
calls on the legislative body to deliberate upon a binary decision. As a result, petitioners' reliance on Leser v. GarnettSearch
-
U. S. 130 (1922), and Hawke v. SmithSearch
-
tion when individual votes within the same State were weighted unequally, see, e. g., Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
g) (1999). 3 Cf. Victor V. NebraskaSearch
-
Bain Peanut Co. of Tex. v. PinsonSearch
-
Siegel v. LePoreSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial