Supreme Court· 5/31/1977

Connor v. Finch

Citations

431 U.S. 407
97 S. Ct. 1828
52 L. Ed. 2d 465
1977 U.S. LEXIS 95

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

stating that issues may “appropriately be viewed as an issue implicitly raised by the parties”
reiterating that district court errs in considering constitutional validity of legislative act which had not been precleared
observing that court-drawn redistricting must be “free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination” (quotation omitted)
holding a legislative reapportionment plan to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause where the resulting maximum population deviations were greater than 10% and, consequently, could not be characterized as de minimis
“We have repeatedly emphasized that ‘legislative reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination’ ” (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 586 (1964))
appellate review of a district court's choice of remedy in a voting rights case is for abuse of discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

240 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Connor v. Finch

7 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.