Nolan v. Rhodes

378 U.S. 556, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1034, 84 S. Ct. 1906, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 842
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided June 22, 1964·No. 454·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533. The cases are remanded for further proceedings 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.

Mr. Justice Clark would reverse on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587. Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment because the Ohio system of legislative apportionment is *557 clearly a rational one and clearly does not frustrate effective majority rule. 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

Nolan v. Rhodes, 378 U.S. 556, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1034, 84 S. Ct. 1906, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 842 (1964).

378 U.S. 556 (Nolan v. Rhodes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilson v. Kasich
2012 Ohio 5367 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012)
Armour v. State of Ohio
775 F. Supp. 1044 (N.D. Ohio, 1991)
Butcher v. Bloom
216 A.2d 457 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1966)
Buchanan v. Rhodes
249 F. Supp. 860 (N.D. Ohio, 1966)
Nolan v. Rhodes
251 F. Supp. 584 (S.D. Ohio, 1965)
Honsey v. Donovan
236 F. Supp. 8 (D. Minnesota, 1964)