42 U.S.C. § 1973a

Transferred

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

[transferred]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 57 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1974–2023 · leading case: Jeffers v. Clinton, 740 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Ark. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jeffers v. Clinton, 740 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Ark. 1990). · cites it 8× “The questions whether the defendants had also violated the Constitution, and whether, if so, the remedy of preclearance under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(c), should be applied, were left to be decided in another opinion.”

Morse v. Repub. Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). · cites it 4× “" 42 U. S. C. § 1973a (1988 ed.) (emphasis added).”

Blackmoon v. Charles Mix Cnty., 505 F. Supp. 2d 585 (D.S.D. 2007). · cites it 21× “Despite Defendants’ position that the Court has already denied relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1973a for a malapportionment violation, the Court has not yet ruled on whether Plaintiffs are entitled to such relief.”

Stephenson v. Bartlett, 562 S.E.2d 377 (N.C. 2002). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. §§ 1973a, 1973b; Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.”

Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 1973a(c). Specifically, courts presiding over voting discrimination suits may "retain jurisdiction for such period as [they] may deem appropriate" and order that during that time no voting change take effect unless either approved by the court or unopposed by the…”

Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk, Va., 678 F. Supp. 2d 348 (E.D. Va. 2009). · cites it 4× “” 42 U.S.C. § 1973a. Because a “party who fulfills] the injury-in-fact prong of the constitutional standing requirements would also be a ‘person aggrieved’ and would therefore fulfill the plain language of the statute,” this Court need only examine the requirements of…”

North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016). “§ 10302 (a), (c) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973a). Such remedies “[are] rarely used” and are not necessary here in light of our injunction.”

United States v. Sheffield Bd. of Comm'rs, 435 U.S. 110 (1978). · cites it 2× “, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1973a (a)-(c) (1970 ed., Supp.”

Shelby Cnty. Ala. v. Holder, 811 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 3× “” See 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(a); see also H.R.Rep. No.”

Rybicki v. State Bd. of Elections of Illinois, 574 F. Supp. 1147 (N.D. Ill. 1983). · cites it 4× “[19] The Crosby plaintiffs also request that we exercise continuing jurisdiction until after the next reapportionment to grant future relief in this case under section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(c) (1976). Section 3(c) states that a court "shall retain…”

Parker v. Ohio, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (S.D. Ohio 2003). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 1973a. [2] See Armour v. State of Ohio, No.”

Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F. Supp. 196 (E.D. Ark. 1990). · cites it 2× “They ask us to hold the existing arrangement of Senate and House districts unlawful, order a new plan into effect for the 1990 elections, and place the State of Arkansas under the preclearance procedure laid out in Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(c). We…”

Show all 57 citing cases →

— 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(a) — 13 cases

Blackmoon v. Charles Mix Cnty., 505 F. Supp. 2d 585 (D.S.D. 2007). “Despite Defendants’ position that the Court has already denied relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1973a for a malapportionment violation, the Court has not yet ruled on whether Plaintiffs are entitled to such relief.”

North Carolina State Conf. of the NAACP v. McCrory, 997 F. Supp. 2d 322 (M.D.N.C. 2014).

Shelby Cnty. Ala. v. Holder, 811 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.D.C. 2011). “” See 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(a); see also H.R.Rep. No.”

North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory, 182 F. Supp. 3d 320 (M.D.N.C. 2016).

United States v. Berks Cnty., Pennsylvania, 277 F. Supp. 2d 570 (E.D. Pa. 2003).

— 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(b) — 1 case

Lopez v. Merced Cnty., Cal., 473 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (E.D. Cal. 2007).

— 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(c) — 23 cases

Jeffers v. Clinton, 740 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Ark. 1990). “The questions whether the defendants had also violated the Constitution, and whether, if so, the remedy of preclearance under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(c), should be applied, were left to be decided in another opinion.”

Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “42 U.S.C. § 1973a(c). Specifically, courts presiding over voting discrimination suits may "retain jurisdiction for such period as [they] may deem appropriate" and order that during that time no voting change take effect unless either approved by the court or unopposed by the…”

Rybicki v. State Bd. of Elections of Illinois, 574 F. Supp. 1147 (N.D. Ill. 1983). “[19] The Crosby plaintiffs also request that we exercise continuing jurisdiction until after the next reapportionment to grant future relief in this case under section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(c) (1976). Section 3(c) states that a court "shall retain…”

Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F. Supp. 196 (E.D. Ark. 1990). “They ask us to hold the existing arrangement of Senate and House districts unlawful, order a new plan into effect for the 1990 elections, and place the State of Arkansas under the preclearance procedure laid out in Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(c). We…”

Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk, Va., 678 F. Supp. 2d 348 (E.D. Va. 2009). “” 42 U.S.C. § 1973a. Because a “party who fulfills] the injury-in-fact prong of the constitutional standing requirements would also be a ‘person aggrieved’ and would therefore fulfill the plain language of the statute,” this Court need only examine the requirements of…”

— 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(e) — 2 cases

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.