Citation network
Branch Vs. Smith
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 31, 2003
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. 254 (2003) October Term, 2002 Syllabus Branch Et Al. V. SmithSearch
-
Together with No. 01-1596, Smith et al. v. BranchSearch
-
of the statecourt plan. Pp. 261-266. (a) There are two critical distinctions between these cases and Growe v. EmisonSearch
-
Georgia v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
electoral plans. The Voting Rights Act had recently been enacted, and this Court's decisions in, e. g., Baker v. CarrSearch
-
for districting. White v. WeiserSearch
-
Posadas v. NationalSearch
-
with the State Chancery Court's efforts to develop a redistricting plan. In an order filed on December 5,2001, Smith v. ClarkSearch
-
id., at 503 (quoting Growe v. EmisonSearch
-
At the outset we should observe two critical distinctions between these cases and the one that was before us in Growe v. EmisonSearch
-
Id., at 34 (quoting Chapman v. MeierSearch
-
see Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. WhiteSearch
-
seeking administrative preclearance must prove that the change is nondiscriminatory in purpose and effect. Reno v. BossierSearch
-
It bears the burden of providing the Attorney General information sufficient to make that proof, Georgia v. UnitedSearch
-
accord, Morris v. GressetteSearch
-
until the requested information was received. The request was neither frivolous nor unwarranted. See Georgia v. UnitedSearch
-
et seq.). Even more significant, our decisions in Baker v. CarrSearch
-
U. S. 186 (1962), Wesberry v. SandersSearch
-
U. S. 1 (1964), and Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
in which the role of federal courts in redistricting disputes had been transformed from spectating, see Colegrove v. GreenSearch
-
redistricting plan by the Michigan Legislature, all Michigan Representatives would be elected at large. Calkins v. HareSearch
-
On October 19, 1964, a three-judge District Court entered a similar order for the State of Texas. See Bush v. MartinSearch
-
compel the court to require at-large elections if the legislature adopted malapportioned congressional districts. Park v. FaubusSearch
-
Preisler v. SecretarySearch
-
Missouri, 257 F. Supp. 953, 981, 982 (WD Mo. 1966), aff'd, 385 U. S. 450 (1967) (per curiam). In Meeks v. AndersonSearch
-
F. Supp. 271, 273-274 (Kan. 1964), and Baker v. ClementSearch
-
Simpson v. MahanSearch
-
required it to establish single-member districts, see Legislature v. ReineckeSearch
-
P. 2d 385, 390 (1972), a conclusion that it reaffirmed in 1982, see Assembly of State of Gal. v. DeukmejianSearch
-
Cal. 3d 638, 664, 639 P. 2d 939, 955 (1982). In Shayer v. KirkpatrickSearch
-
F. Supp. 922, 926 (WD Mo.), aff'd sub nom. Schatzle v. KirkpatrickSearch
-
And in Carstens v. LammSearch
-
c). Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
only to legislative action. Its more common meaning, however, encompasses judicial decisions as well. See, e. g., Hope v. PelzerSearch
-
Swidler & Berlin v. UnitedSearch
-
would be subject to no exception, and courts would (despite Baker v. CarrSearch
-
c) by implication. See Shayer v. KirkpatrickSearch
-
Assembly of State of Cal. v. DeukmejianSearch
-
Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corp. v. WashingtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial