SANDINI

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Mars Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398 (7th Cir. 1984)
  …ip op. at 19 (N.D.I11. Nov. 23, 1981), affd sub nom. McClory v. Otto, 454 U.S. 1130, 102 S.Ct. 985, 71 L.Ed.2d 284 (1982). The 65% figure was adopted in State of Mississippi v. United States, 490 F.Supp. 569 (D.D.C.1979) (three-judge panel), affd, 444 U.S. 1050, 100 S.Ct. 994, 62 L.Ed.2d 739 (1980), where the court stated that [i]t has been generally conceded that, barring exceptional circumstances such as two white candidates splitting the vote, a district should contain a black population of at least 65…
• Donnell v. United States, 682 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
  …not disposi-tive. This circuit has dealt before with cases under the Voting Rights Act involving the legality of a redistricting scheme. See, e.g., Mississippi v. United States, 490 F.Supp. 569 (D.D.C.1979) (three-judge district court), aff’d mem., 444 U.S. 1050, 100 S.Ct. 994, 62 L.Ed.2d 739 (1980). We perceive no difference between the applicable law on county redistricting and that on redistricting of other governmental jurisdictions. Moreover, many county redistricting cases have been decided elsewhere.…
• Hoots v. Commonwealth OF Pa., 672 F.2d 1124 (3d Cir. 1982)
  ….1966) (same), remanded for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, 376 F. 2d 567 (3d Cir. 1967). See note 14 infra. . Appellants also rely on Morrilton School District No. 32 v. United States, 606 F. 2d 222 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. dismissed and denied, 444 U.S. 1050, 1071, 100 S.Ct. 992, 1015, 62 L.Ed.2d 737, 753 (1980), and Haney v. County Board of Education, 429 F. 2d 364 (8th Cir. 1970), as support for their argument that the district court’s order violated the “one person, one vote” principle. In Morrilton…