MARSHALL v. HARE, 378 U.S. 561 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court
MARSHALL v. HARE, 378 U.S. 561 (1964)
378 U.S. 561 MARSHALL ET AL. v. HARE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN. No. 962.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
Reported below: 227 F. Supp. 989.
Theodore Sachs for appellants.
Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General of Michigan, Stanton S. Faville, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and James R. Ramsey and Russell A. Searl, Assistant Attorneys General, for Hare et al.; and Edmund E. Shepherd and R. William Rogers for Beadle et al., appellees.
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 the Michigan system of legislative apportionment is clearly a rational one and clearly 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.
U.S. Supreme Court
MARSHALL v. HARE, 378 U.S. 561 (1964)
378 U.S. 561 MARSHALL ET AL. v. HARE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN. No. 962.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
Reported below: 227 F. Supp. 989.
Theodore Sachs for appellants.
Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General of Michigan, Stanton S. Faville, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and James R. Ramsey and Russell A. Searl, Assistant Attorneys General, for Hare et al.; and Edmund E. Shepherd and R. William Rogers for Beadle et al., appellees.
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 the Michigan system of legislative apportionment is clearly a rational one and clearly 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.
Page 378 U.S. 561, 562
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
