Mahan v. Howell

Supreme Court

Mahan v. Howell

411 U.S. 922, 93 S. Ct. 1475

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 2, 1973

DocketNo. 71-364; No. 71-373

StatusPublished

Cited by32 cases

This text of 411 U.S. 922 (Mahan v. Howell) 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

Mahan v. Howell, 411 U.S. 922, 93 S. Ct. 1475 (1973).

Pincite

Opinion

410 U. S. 315. Treating the petition for rehearing in No. 71-373 as a motion to modify the Court’s opinion, the following order is hereby entered:

“The motion of appellant, city of Virginia Beach, to modify this Court’s opinion is hereby granted. The first paragraph in Part II of the opinion is amended by adding ‘a portion of’ after the phrase ‘Under the plan,’ in the second sentence thereof, and by striking the phrase ‘encompassing the cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach’ in the last sentence of the paragraph, substituting therefor the following phrase: ‘encompassing the city of Norfolk and a portion of Virginia Beach.’

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.

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

410 U. S. 315. Treating the petition for rehearing in No. 71-373 as a motion to modify the Court’s opinion, the following order is hereby entered:

“The motion of appellant, city of Virginia Beach, to modify this Court’s opinion is hereby granted. The first paragraph in Part II of the opinion is amended by adding ‘a portion of’ after the phrase ‘Under the plan,’ in the second sentence thereof, and by striking the phrase ‘encompassing the cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach’ in the last sentence of the paragraph, substituting therefor the following phrase: ‘encompassing the city of Norfolk and a portion of Virginia Beach.’

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.

League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434, and Jessie Oliver, Intervening v. William P. Clements, Etc., Jim Mattox v. Judge F. Harold Entz, Etc., Judge Sharolyn Wood, Etc., and George S. Bayoud, Jr., Etc., and Tom Rickhoff, Susan D. Reed, John J. Specia, Jr., Sid L. Harle, Sharon MacRae and Michael P. Pedan, Bexar County, Texas State District Judges

986 F.2d 728 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)

Fonfara v. Reapportionment Commission

610 A.2d 153 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1992)

Morris v. Board of Estimate

831 F.2d 384 (Second Circuit, 1987)

Kenai Peninsula Borough v. State

743 P.2d 1352 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1987)

Horton v. Meskill

486 A.2d 1099 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1985)

Bandemer v. Davis

603 F. Supp. 1479 (S.D. Indiana, 1984)

Carpenter v. Hammond

667 P.2d 1204 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1983)

Borough of Oceanport v. Hughes

451 A.2d 966 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1982)

Baker v. Regional High School District No. 5

476 F. Supp. 319 (D. Connecticut, 1979)

Township of Franklin v. Board of Education

378 A.2d 218 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1977)

Franklin Tp. v. BD. OF ED. N. HUNTERDON REG. HIGH SCH.

378 A.2d 218 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 U.S. 922, 93 S. Ct. 1475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahan-v-howell-scotus-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack