green
Positive treatment
3.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Contest of November 8, 2011 General Election of Office of New Jersey General Assembly
See Hadnott v. Amos, 320 F.Supp. 107, 120-21 (M.D.Ala.1970) af f'd mem., 401 U.S. 968 , 91 S.Ct. 1189 , 28 L.Ed.2d 318 (1971) (discussing importance of voter familiarity with candidate’s character and life experiences).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ellis v. Coffee County Board of Registrars
See Hadnott v. Amos, 320 F.Supp. 107, 113 (M.D.Ala.1970) ("Unquestionably, a state can limit its franchise to bona fide residents.”), aff’d mem., 401 U.S. 968 , 91 S.Ct. 1189 , 28 L.Ed.2d 318 (1971), 405 U.S. 1035 , 92 S.Ct. 1304 , 31 L.Ed.2d 576 (1972); Gray v. Main, 309 F.Supp. 207, 216 (M.D.Ala.1968) ("A state has the power to impose reasonable residence restrictions on the availability of the ballot.’’). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Hatcher v. Bell
(2×)
See Hadnott v. Amos, 320 F.Supp. 107 (M.D.Ala.1970), aff'd without opinion, 401 U.S. 968 , 91 S. Ct. 1189 , 28 L.Ed.2d 318 (1971), wherein the Court says: “We consider it to be of urgent importance that the voter have an opportunity to observe, learn about and apprise those who seek to be candidates for a key judicial office that touches important events and relationships of their lives and of the community in which they live.” The purpose would be defeated and the residence requirement emasculated and of no effect if, as urged by appellant, the residence requirement could be satisfied by …
cited
Cited "see"
Gilbert v. State
See Hadnott v. Amos, 320 F.Supp. 107 (M.D.Ala.), aff’d mem. 401 U.S. 968 , 91 S.Ct. 1189 , 28 L.Ed.2d 318 (1971), 405 U.S. 1035 , 92 S.Ct. 1304 , 31 L.Ed.2d 576 (1972). 30 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hannett v. Jones
(2×)
See Hatcher v. Bell, 521 S.W.2d 799, 803-04 (Tenn.1974); see also Hadnott v. Amos, 320 F.Supp. 107, 119-22 (M.D.Ala.1970), aff'd without opinion, 401 U.S. 968 , 91 S.Ct. 1189 , 28 L.Ed.2d 318 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Russell v. Hathaway
See also Hadnott v. Amos, 320 F.Supp. 107 (M.D.Ala.1970) aff’d mem. 401 U.S. 968 , 91 S.Ct. 1189 , 28 L.Ed.2d 318 (1971) sustaining Alabama’s one year residency in a circuit as a requirement of appointment or election as a Circuit Judge.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John E. Wiren v. Donald Eide, as District Director of the Bureau of Customs
(2×)
Under Mendoza-Martinez , a mere request for declaratory relief, not coupled with a request for injunctive relief, may be disposed of on the merits by a single-judge court; if granted, such declaratory relief affects the relevant Act of Congress, if at all, “in a totally noncoercive fashion” and does not constitute an “interdiction of the operation at large of the statute.” 372 U.S. at 155 , 83 S.Ct. at 560 ; see also New Orleans Book Mart, Inc. v. Mitchell, 318 F.Supp. 352, 353 (M.D.Fla.1970), affirmed, 401 U.S. 968 , 91 S.Ct. 1199 , 28 L.Ed.2d 319 (1971). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shiffman v. Askew
See also Hadnott v. Amos, 320 F.Supp. 107 (M.D.Ala.1970), affirmed, 401 U.S. 968 , 91 S.Ct. 1189 , 28 L.Ed.2d 318 (1971), in which the Court found that durational residency requirements as to certain candidates were supported by compelling state interests while those pertaining to voters were not.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Walker v. Yucht
Compare Hadnot v. Amos, 320 F.Supp. 107 (N.D.Ala.1970) (three judge court), aff’d without opinion, 401 U.S. 968 , 91 S.Ct. 1189 , 28 L.Ed.2d 318 (1971). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hadnott
v.
Amos, Secretary of State of Alabama
v.
Amos, Secretary of State of Alabama
No. 882.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 22, 1971.
Douglas, Noted, Set, Should.
Cited by 14 opinions | Published
Appeal from D. C. M. D. Ala. Motion to dispense with printing jurisdictional statement and other relief granted. Motion of appellee Hildreth to dispense with printing motion to affirm granted. Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.