Germano v. Kerner, 378 U.S. 560 (1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Germano v. Kerner, 378 U.S. 560 (1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
69 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 19 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Armour v. State of Ohio (ohnd, 1991-09-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Armour v. State of Ohio (2×)
N.D. Ohio · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nolan v. Rhodes, 378 U.S. 556 , 84 S.Ct. 1906 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1034 (1964).
discussed Cited "see" Burkett v. Ashley (2×)
Tenn. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally West v. Carr, 212 Tenn. 367 , 370 S.W.2d 469 (1963), appeal dismissed 378 U.S. 557 , 84 S.Ct. 1908 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1034 (1964); Cummings v. Beeler, 189 Tenn. 151 , 223 S.W.2d 913 (1949).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
GERMANO Et Al.
v.
KERNER, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, Et Al.
636.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 22, 1964.
378 U.S. 560
Bernard Kleiman, Lester Asher, John C. Melaniphy and Charles S. Rhyne for appellants., Howard J. Trienens and Gary L. Cowan for appellees.
Clark, Stewart, Campbell, Supp, Illinois, Sims, Goldberg.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U. S. 713. The case is 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 and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment, because, as the opinions of Judge Campbell and Judge Schnackenberg demonstrate, 220 F. Supp. 230, 235, the Illinois system of legislative apportionment is entirely rational and 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. Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.