POLICE JURY OF THE PARISH OF VERMILION

v.

HEBERT

Citator

Cited By

• Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1973)
  …and (2) that the exclusions are necessary to promote the State’s articulated goal. Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, supra; Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701; Kramer v. Union School District, supra. See also Police Jury of Vermillion Parish v. Hebert, 404 U. S. 807; Stewart v. Parish School Board of St. Charles, 310 F. Supp. 1172, aff’d, 400 U. S. 884. In my view, appellants in this case have made a sufficient showing to invoke the above principles, and the presumption thus established has not been overcome.…
• Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (U.S. 1981)
  …nproperty owners. Nor may the vote be limited to property owners in bond issuance elections with respect to general obligation bonds secured by property tax revenues. Phoenix, supra, at 209-213. See also Police Jury of Parish of Vermilion v. Hebert, 404 U. S. 807 (1971), summarily rev’g 258 La. 41, 245 So. 2d 349 (cannot limit vote for road improvement bonds to property holders). The Court has thus rejected the view that simply because property is directly burdened because of some governmental action, that…
• Pueschel v. Connecticut, 414 U.S. 934 (U.S. 1973)
  …ng license suspensions which had occurred prior to our [*935] decision in Bell. See Gaytan v. Cassidy, 403 U. S. 902, vacating and remanding 317 F. Supp. 46; Pollion v. Lewis, 403 U. S. 902, vacating and remanding 320 F. Supp. 1343; Latham v. Tynan, 404 U. S. 807, vacating and remanding 435 F. 2d 1248. The State also argues that petitioner cannot raise Bell as a defense to his criminal charge because he has chosen not to challenge his suspension by seeking available judicial review of the suspension itself,…