PINNEY v. BUTTERWORTH, 378 U.S. 564 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court
PINNEY v. BUTTERWORTH, 378 U.S. 564 (1964) 378 U.S. 564PINNEY ET AL. v. BUTTERWORTH ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF
CONNECTICUT. No. 1078.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Judgment affirmed and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with views stated in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533.
Reported below: 229 F. Supp. 754.
H. Meade Alcorn, Jr., James William Moore and Norman K. Parsells for appellants.
Richard H. Bowerman for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment below is affirmed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533. The case is remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, 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 would affirm the judgment on the basis of his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 587.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that Connecticut's system of legislative apportionment violates the Equal Protection Clause.
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
PINNEY v. BUTTERWORTH, 378 U.S. 564 (1964) 378 U.S. 564 PINNEY ET AL. v. BUTTERWORTH ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
CONNECTICUT. No. 1078.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Judgment affirmed and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with views stated in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533. Reported below: 229 F. Supp. 754. H. Meade Alcorn, Jr., James William Moore and Norman K. Parsells for appellants. Richard H. Bowerman for appellees. PER CURIAM. The judgment below is affirmed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533. The case is remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, 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 would affirm the judgment on the basis of his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 587. MR. JUSTICE STEWART would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that Connecticut's system of legislative apportionment violates the Equal Protection Clause. 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. 564, 565
