Citation network
Easley Vs. Cromartie
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 18, 2001
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Governor of North Carolina, Et Al. V. CromartieSearch
-
by using race as the predominant factor in drawing its Twelfth Congressional District's 1992 boundaries, Shaw v. HuntSearch
-
with a race-based objective or the constitutional political objective of creating a safe Democratic seat. Hunt v. CromartieSearch
-
Governor James B. Hunt, Jr., pursuant to this Court's Rule 35.3. tTogether with No. 99-1865, Smallwood et al. v. CromartieSearch
-
at 546. Because the underlying districting decision falls within a legislature's sphere of competence, Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
and which cannot in and of themselves, as a matter of law, support the District Court's judgment here. See Bush v. VeraSearch
-
North Carolina congressional districts drawn in 1992 that contained a majority of African-American voters. See Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
B Our third holding focused on a new District 12, the boundaries of which the legislature had redrawn in 1997. Hunt v. CromartieSearch
-
Cromartie v. HuntSearch
-
Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
Cromartie, supra, at 546 (quoting Shaw I, 509 U. S., at 644, in turn quoting Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Anderson v. BessemerSearch
-
the concurrent findings of the two lower courts. E. g., Neil 243 v. BiggersSearch
-
we find that an extensive review of the District Court's findings, for clear error, is warranted. See Bose Corp. v. ConsumersSearch
-
the District Court did not rely upon the existence of the 1998 plan to support its ultimate conclusion. See Kelley v. EvergladesSearch
-
that race was the predominant factor motivating the North Carolina Legislature is a factual finding. See Hunt v. CromartieSearch
-
Lawyer v. DepartmentSearch
-
U. S. 900 , 910 (1995). See also Anderson v. BessemerSearch
-
Id., at 573 (quoting United States v. UnitedSearch
-
Miller and Shaw, we also did not have the benefit of intermediate appellate review. See also United States v. OregonSearch
-
of the trial were relevant in deciding how to review factual findings, an as- 1 Despite its citation of Bose Corp. v. ConsumersSearch
-
U. S., at 515 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting). Nor could it, given our holdings in Lawyer v. DepartmentSearch
-
of Justice, 521 U. S. 567 (1997), Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
U. S. 900 (1995), and Shaw v. HuntSearch
-
long, Bose Corp. v. ConsumersSearch
-
overlooks the District Court's express assessment of the legislative redistricting leader's credibility. See Cromartie v. HuntSearch
-
See Bush v. VeraSearch
-
See Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
See Bose Corp. v. ConsumersSearch
-
See Kelley v. EvergladesSearch
-
See Hunt v. CromartieSearch
-
of Bose Corp. v. ConsumersSearch
-
and Shaw v. HuntSearch
-
Bose Corp. v. ConsumersSearch
-
See Cromartie v. HuntSearch
-
United States v. OregonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial