Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Colegrove Vs. Green

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 10, 1946

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

69 entries 11 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Gradwell US Supreme Court · Apr 09, 1917
  2. United States Vs. Lovett US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1946
  3. American Federation of Labor Vs. Watson US Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1946
  4. Nixon Vs. Condon US Supreme Court · May 02, 1932
  5. United States Vs. Mosley US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1915
  6. Giles Vs. Harris US Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1903
  7. Smiley Vs. Holm US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1932
  8. Koenig Vs. Flynn US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1932
  9. Matthews Vs. Rodgers US Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1932
  10. United States Vs. Classic US Supreme Court · May 26, 1941
  11. Nixon Vs. Herndon US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1927
  12. U.S. 549 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court Colegrove v. Green
    Search
  13. U.S. 549 (1946) Colegrove v. Green
    Search
  14. S. 551 and approximate equality of population. The District Court, feeling bound by this Court's opinion in Wood v. Broom
    Search
  15. dismissed the complaint. 64 F.Supp.632. The District Court was clearly right in deeming itself bound by Wood v. Broom
    Search
  16. supra, and we could also dispose of this case on the authority of Wood v. Broom
    Search
  17. It must be remembered that not only was the legislative history of the matter fully considered in Wood v. Broom
    Search
  18. but the question had been elaborately before the Court in Smiley v. Holm
    Search
  19. U. S. 355 , Koenig v. Flynn
    Search
  20. U. S. 375 , and Carroll v. Becker
    Search
  21. U. S. 380 , argued a few months before Wood v. Broom
    Search
  22. to question the correctness of that which seemed compelling to this Court in enforcing the will of Congress in Wood v. Broom
    Search
  23. agree with the four Justices (Brandeis, Stone, Roberts, and Cardozo, JJ.) who were of opinion that the bill in Wood v. Broom
    Search
  24. To be sure, the present complaint, unlike the bill in Wood v. Broom
    Search
  25. the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act which, not having been enacted until 1934, was not available at the time of Wood v. Broom
    Search
  26. Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman
    Search
  27. Nashville, C. & St.L. R. Co. v. Wallace
    Search
  28. citizens. The basis for the suit is not a private wrong, but a wrong suffered by Illinois as a polity. Compare Nixon v. Herndon
    Search
  29. U. S. 536 , and Lane v. Wilson
    Search
  30. U. S. 268 , with Giles v. Harris
    Search
  31. to deliver up a fugitive from justice. But the fulfillment of this duty cannot be judicially enforced. Kentucky v. Dennison
    Search
  32. The duty to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed cannot be brought under legal compulsion, Mississippi v. Johnson
    Search
  33. great guaranty of a republican form of government in States cannot be challenged in the courts. Pacific Telephone Co. v. Oregon
    Search
  34. d Page 328 U. S. 564 MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE. I concur in the result. But for the ruling in Smiley v. Holm
    Search
  35. the fact Page 328 U. S. 565 that, in my opinion, the basic ruling and less important ones in Smiley v. Holm
    Search
  36. in a case of this type as against the objection that the issues are not justiciable. In the later case of Wood v. Broom
    Search
  37. same manner as want of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Thus, want of equity jurisdiction may be waived. Matthews v. Rodgers
    Search
  38. States to pick out certain qualified citizens or groups of citizens and deny them the right to vote at all. See Nixon v. Herndon
    Search
  39. has held that this right extends to primaries. United States v. Classic
    Search
  40. Smith v. Texas
    Search
  41. U. S. 128 , 311 U. S. 132 . See also Lane v. Wilson
    Search
  42. I cannot agree with that argument. There have been cases, such as Coleman v. Miller
    Search
  43. But, as this Court said in Nixon Page 328 U. S. 573 v. Herndon
    Search
  44. rights. Wood v. Broom
    Search
  45. could not, or should not, exercise its power in a case like this. As we said with reference to that decision in Lane v. Wilson
    Search
  46. elections. Furthermore, the author of the Giles v. Harris
    Search
  47. opinion also wrote the opinion in Nixon v. Herndon
    Search
  48. case, no supervision over elections is asked for. What is asked is that this Court do exactly what it did in Smiley v. Holm
    Search
  49. Hague v. CIO
    Search
  50. People v. Thompson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial