TUZO

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1982)
  …rue that we have authorized District Courts to order or to permit elections to be held pursuant to apportionment plans that do not in all respects measure up to the legal requirements, even constitutional requirements. See, e. g., Bullock v. Weiser, 404 U. S. 1065 (1972); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 396 U. S. 1055 (1970). Necessity has been the motivating factor in these situations, Because we are not now as familiar as the District Court with the Texas election laws and the legal and practical factors that may bear…
• Weiser v. Honorable Mark White, Jr., 505 F.2d 912 (5th Cir. 1975)
  …titutional and ordered the adoption of one of the two alternative plans of apportionment that Weiser had presented to the three-judge panel, called Plan C. That order was stayed by the Supreme Court upon application of the Secretary [*914] of State. 404 U.S. 1065, 92 S.Ct. 750, 30 L.Ed.2d 775 (1972). On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s finding of unconstitutionality of S.B. 1, the Texas legislative plan. It reversed the three-judge court’s order adopting Plan C, however, because of th…
• N. Natural GAS Co. v. Grounds, 666 F.2d 1279 (10th Cir. 1981)
  …measure addressed and decided in Northern Natural Gas Company v. Grounds, 441 F. 2d 704 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 951, 92 S.Ct. 268, 30 L.Ed.2d 267 (1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1063, 92 S.Ct. 732, 30 L.Ed.2d 751 (1972), reh. denied, 404 U.S. 1065, 92 S.Ct. 732, 30 L.Ed.2d 754 (1972), sometimes referred to as Consolidated Helium Cases I or Grounds I. There, the basic legal relationships were defined and controlling rules were laid down. We there held that the Helex companies (purchasers-extra…