TILDEN

v.

ILLINOIS PAROLE AND PARDON BOARD

Citator

Cited By

• Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1968)
  …apparently did not attempt to file their petitions until late in July. Appellants’ Brief 86. The prior history of Preisler v. Secretary of State, 279 F. Supp. 952 (D. C. W. D. Mo. 1967), probable jurisdiction noted sub nom. Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 390 U. S. 939 (1968), aptly demonstrates the deference we have paid legislative action in this area. On January 4, 1965, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri held that the 1961 Missouri Congressional Redistricting Act was unconsti…
• Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1969)
  …nces. 279 F. Supp. 952 (1967). We noted [*530] probable jurisdiction but stayed the District Court’s judgment pending appeal and expressly authorized the State “to conduct 1968 congressional elections under and pursuant to [the] 1967 . . . Act . . . 390 U. S. 939 (1968). We affirm. Missouri’s primary argument is that the population variances among the districts created by the 1967 Act are so small that they should be considered de minimis and for that reason to satisfy the “as nearly as practicable” limitat…
• Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U.S. 542 (U.S. 1969)
  …e cannot say that there was error in permitting the 1968 election to proceed under the plan despite its constitutional infirmities. See Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U. S. 120, 121 (1967); Martin v. Bush, 376 U. S. 222, 223 (1964); Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 390 U. S. 939 (1968). But ample time remains to promulgate a plan meeting constitutional standards before the election machinery must be set in motion for the 1970 election. We therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court insofar as it approved the plan f…