Hill v. Davis

Supreme Court

Hill v. Davis

378 U.S. 565, 84 S. Ct. 1918, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1037, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 852

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJune 22, 1964

Docket1079

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 378 U.S. 565 (Hill v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. Davis, 378 U.S. 565, 84 S. Ct. 1918, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1037, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 852 (1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment below is affirmed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533. The case is remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds, should that become necessary. Since this appeal presents no question as to the correctness of the District Court’s later decision upholding the validity of the temporary reapportionment plan enacted by the Iowa General Assembly in February 1964, we do not consider or pass upon this matter.

Mr. Justice Clark would affirm on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587. Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that Iowa’s system of legislative apportionment violates the Equal Protection Clause. Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The judgment below is affirmed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533. The case is remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds, should that become necessary. Since this appeal presents no question as to the correctness of the District Court’s later decision upholding the validity of the temporary reapportionment plan enacted by the Iowa General Assembly in February 1964, we do not consider or pass upon this matter.

Mr. Justice Clark would affirm on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587. Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that Iowa’s system of legislative apportionment violates the Equal Protection Clause. Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

378 U.S. 565, 84 S. Ct. 1918, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1037, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-davis-scotus-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack