MIDWEST FREIGHT FORWARDING CO., INC., ET AL.

v.

LEWIS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF ILLINOIS, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• In re Apportionment LAW Appearing AS Senate Joint Resolution 1 E, 414 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1982)
  …titution that there be staggered terms for continuity in the legislative body. See Mader v. Crowell, 498 F.Supp. 226 (M.D.Tenn.1980) (staggered terms by Tenn.Const., art. II, § 3); Ferrell v. Oklahoma ex rel. Hall, 339 F.Supp. 73 (W.D.Okla.), aff’d, 406 U.S. 939, 92 S.Ct. 2045, 32 L.Ed.2d 328 (1972) (staggered terms by Okla.Const.art. 5, § 9A); Legislature of the State of California v. Reinecke, 10 Cal.3d 396, 110 Cal.Rptr. 718, 516 P. 2d 6 (1973) (staggered terms by Cal.Gov.Code § 9002 (Deering 1973)); Twi…

  ← 1 / 5 →
• Zimmer v. McKEITHEN, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973)
  …llenged, and not the reason why the legislation was enacted. . White v. Regester, supra, 412 U.S. at 765, 93 S.Ct. at 2339, 37 L.Ed.2d at 324; Mahan v. Howell, supra, 410 U.S. at 335, 93 S.Ct. 979; Ferrell v. Hall, 339 F.Supp. 73 (W.D. Okl.) aff’d, 406 U.S. 939, 92 S.Ct. 2045, 32 L.Ed.2d 328, petition for rehearing denied, 408 U.S. 932, 92 S.Ct. 2489, 33 L.Ed.2d 344 (1972); Gunderson v. Adams, 328 F.Supp. 584 (S.D.Fla.1970); aff’d, 403 U.S. 913, 91 S.Ct. 2225, 29 L.Ed.2d 692 (1971); Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1986)
  …he Court’s approval of the lower court’s finding of non-justiciability. See 382 U. S., at 6. See also Jimenez v. Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 2, 424 U. S. 950 (1976), summarily aff’g 68 F. R. D. 668 (SD Tex. 1975); Ferrell v. Hall, 406 U. S. 939 (1972), summarily aff’g 339 F. Supp. 73 (WD Okla.); Wells v. Rockefeller, 398 U. S. 901 (1970), summarily aff’g 311 F. Supp. 48 (SDNY). Although these summary affirmances arguably support an inference that these claims are not justiciable, there a…