green
Positive treatment
4.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wells v. Rockefeller
(2×)
See Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U. S. 120, 121 (1967); Martin v. Bush, 376 U. S. 222, 223 (1964); Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 390 U. S. 939 (1968).
cited
Cited "see"
Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
See Martin v. Bush, 376 U. S. 222, 223 ; cf. Lucas v. Colorado Gen.
discussed
Cited "see"
Park v. Faubus
(2×)
See Martin v. Bush, 376 U.S. 222 , 84 S.Ct. 709 , 11 L.Ed.2d 056 (1964), indicating that a stay was granted by Justice Black pending appeal. 4 .
examined
Cited "see"
Meeks v. Anderson
(3×)
See Calkins v. Hare, supra, and Bush v. Martin, supra. However, in its disposition of the Bush case, the Supreme Court continued in effect a stay order entered by Circuit Justice Black, upon appeal, until the appellants had an opportunity to apply to the district court “ * * * for further equitable relief in light of the present circumstances including the imminence of the forthcoming election and ‘the operation of the election machinery of Texas’ noted by the District Court in its opinion.” (376 U.S. at page 222, 84 S.Ct. at page 709, 11 L.Ed.2d at page 656) We agree that this disposi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Seattle v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(2×)
No. 1 v. FPC, 308 F.2d 318 (D.C.Cir.1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 908 , 83 S.Ct. 719 , 9 L.Ed.2d 716 (1963); see also City of Seattle v. Beezer, 376 U.S. 224 , 84 S.Ct. 709 , 11 L.Ed.2d 656 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City Of Seattle v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(2×)
No. 1 v. FPC, 308 F.2d 318 (D.C.Cir.1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 908 , 83 S.Ct. 719 , 9 L.Ed.2d 716 (1963); see also City of Seattle v. Beezer, 376 U.S. 224 , 84 S.Ct. 709 , 11 L.Ed.2d 656 (1964). 5 For many years thereafter, PUD did not seek to use the boon given to it by Article 49.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rockefeller v. Wells
(2×)
See also Bush v. Martin, 224 F. Supp. 499, 511 , aff'd, 376 U. S. 222 . [2] The New York Legislature, for example, made careful efforts to comply with the constitutional requirements, as they had been enunciated by this Court.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chapman v. Public Utility District No. 1
(2×)
See also City of Seattle v. Beezer, 376 U.S. 224 , 84 S.Ct. 709 , 11 L.Ed.2d 656 (1964); City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers, 357 U.S. 320, 339-340 , 78 S.Ct. 1209 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1345 (1958).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Melvin G. Chapman and Dorothy A. Chapman v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington, a Corporation, Jack F. Nickell, Zella Nickell, David L. Nickell and Elaine Violet Nickell v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington, a Corporation
(2×)
See also City of Seattle v. Beezer, 376 U.S. 224 , 84 S.Ct. 709 , 11 L.Ed.2d 656 (1964); City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers, 357 U.S. 320, 339-340 , 78 S.Ct. 1209 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1345 (1958).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Baker v. Clement
(3×)
In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 559 , 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1380 , 12 L.Ed.2d 506 , the Court said: “In Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 [ 84 S.Ct. 526 , 11 L.Ed.2d 481 ], decided earlier this Term, we held that attacks on the constitutionality of congressional districting plans enacted by state legislatures do not present non justiciable questions and should not be dismissed generally for ‘want of equity.’ We determined that the constitutional test for the validity of congressional districting schemes was one of substantial equality of population among the various districts established by a …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MARTIN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF TEXAS, Et Al.
v.
BUSH Et Al.
v.
BUSH Et Al.
675.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 2, 1964.
Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Albert P. Jones and Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorneys General, Mary K. Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Will D. Davis and Frank C. Erwin, Jr. for appellants., William B. Cassin and Thad T. Hutcheson for appellees.
Pee, Sanders, Harlan.
Cited by 25 opinions | Published
[*223] Pee Curiam.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed on the authority of Wesberry v. Sanders, ante, p. 1, without prejudice to the right of the appellants to apply by April 1, 1964, to the District Court for further equitable relief in light of the present circumstances including the imminence of the forthcoming election and “the operation of the election machinery of Texas” noted by the District Court in its opinion. * The stay heretofore granted by Mr. Justice Black is continued in effect pending timely application for the foregoing relief and final disposition thereof by the District Court.
Mr. Justice Clark joins this disposition, but upon the grounds stated in his separate opinion in Wesberry v. Sanders, ante, p. 18. Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart would reverse the judgment below for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Wesberry v. Sanders, ante, pp. 20, 50.