2 U.S.C. § 3
This resolution shall become effective as of the beginning of the calendar month in which this resolution is adopted [June 1969].”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1931–2018 · leading case: Bush v. Martin, 224 F. Supp. 499 (S.D. Tex. 1964).
Bush v. Martin, 224 F. Supp. 499 (S.D. Tex. 1964). “That the congressional articulation of that constitutional imperative former 2 U.S.C.A. § 3 [27] evaporated with the exhaustion of that law in 1929 [28] is not decisive.”
Hume v. Mahan, 1 F. Supp. 142 (E.D. Ky. 1932). “[2 USCA § 3]), which provides that Representatives in Congress from each state shall be elected by districts composed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.”
Broom v. Wood, 1 F. Supp. 134 (S.D. Miss. 1932). “" If a primary object of the act is evinced by the mandate that "the Representatives to Congress shall be elected by districts composed of a contiguous and compact territory" (2 USCA § 3), each with only one representative, such object should not be wholly defeated because the…”
Meeks v. Avery, 251 F. Supp. 245 (D. Kan. 1966). “14 ) required that representatives to Congress “be elected by districts composed of contiguous and compact territory, and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.”
Keogh v. Horner, 8 F. Supp. 933 (S.D. Ill. 1934). “to why the writ should issue; hut for the purpose of this opinion it is sufficient to state it is claimed the election of members of the House of Representatives from the state of Illinois is illegal and void because of the failure of the Illinois General Assembly to redistriet…”
Park v. Faubus, 238 F. Supp. 62 (E.D. Ark. 1965). “Title 2 U.S.C.A. § 3 , requiring congressmen in states having more than one representative to be elected by districts containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants, expired by its own limitation upon the enactment of the Reapportionment Act of June 18, 1929.”
United States v. Seymour, 50 F.2d 930 (D. Neb. 1931). “Code, §§ 3, 7, 9 [2 USCA §§ 3, 7, 9]. In view of these decisions, it is not perceived why Congress may not enact valid legislation providing that the manner of elections for Senators and Representatives shall be by the use of a printed official ballot; that upon such ballot…”
Watts v. O'Connell, 247 S.W.2d 531 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952). “The Act of Congress of August 8, 1911,' 2 U.S.C.A. § 3 , providing for the apportionment of- representatives in states reads: “In each State entitled under this apportionment to more than one Representative, the Representatives to the Sixty-third and each subsequent Congress…”
Colegrove v. Green, 64 F. Supp. 632 (N.D. Ill. 1946). “3, of the Act of August 8, 1911, 2 U. S.C.A. § 3, which required districts to be of contiguous and compact territory and contain as nearly as practical an equal number of inhabitants, is not effective today.”
Chambers v. Hampden Coal, LLC (S.D.W. Va 2018). “” 2 U.S.C. § 3 . “A district court therefore has no choice but to grant a motion to compel arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement exists and the issues in a case fall within its purview.”
Auth. of USDA to Award Monetary Relief for Discrimination (OLC 1994). “14 S e e F air H ousing Act, 4 2 U.S C § 3 6 1 3 (c)(2 ), R ehabilitation A ct, 29 U S.”
Serv. of Acting Adm'r of the Law Enf't Assistance Admin. Beyond Thirty Days Following the Resignation of the Adm'r (OLC 1978). “T h e p re sen t situ a tio n d o e s not in v o lv e a d e sig n a tio n o f an a cting head o f an e x ec u tiv e ag en c y but ra th e r it c o n ce rn s a d e le g atio n o f a u th o rity u n d e r 4 2 U.S.C. § 3 7 5 2 , a d ifferen t m atter fro m a legal stan d p o in t.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.