PINNEY v. BUTTERWORTH, 378 U.S. 564 (1964)

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




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

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

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.