DUDDLESTON ET AL.
v.
GRILLS ET AL.

U.S. | 1967-01-09
No. 370
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.
385 U.S. 455 Supreme Court of the United States (1967) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for further consideration in light of Swann v. Adams, ante, p. 440, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, and Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533.

Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Rockefeller v. Wells, 389 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1967)
    …y the Court should endeavor to define what such circumstances are, and to indicate how they are relevant. Instead, the Court more and more often disposes of reapportionment cases summarily, see, e. g., Toombs v. Fortson, supra; Duddleston v. Grills, 385 U. S. 455; Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 385 U. S. 450; Lucas v. Rhodes, ante, p. 212; and when the Court does issue an opinion, it is content simply to recite that such circumstances may be relevant, without undertaking any elucidation. See, e. g., Swann v. Adams…
  • Branigin v. Grills, 390 U.S. 932 (U.S. 1968)
    …ction Board of Indiana, and others, to stay enforcement of the order of a three-judge District Court creating districts for the election of Indiana’s 11 members of the United States House of Representatives. The court had, after this Court’s remand, 385 U. S. 455, previously declared unconstitutional the districting arrangement adopted in 1965 by the Indiana General Assembly. Grills v. Branigin, 284 F. Supp. 176. A majority of the District Court believed it necessary to abandon many of the districting bound…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw