Supreme Court· 2/23/1993

Growe v. Emison

Citations

507 U.S. 25
113 S. Ct. 1075
122 L. Ed. 2d 388
1993 U.S. LEXIS 1780
61 U.S.L.W. 4163
7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 15
93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1217

How courts have described this case

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

holding that “Section 2 ‘does not assume the existence of bloc voting: plaintiffs must prove it’ ”
recognizing that the three Gingles preconditions would apply to a §2 challenge to a single-member district
recognizing that a federal court may become involved in reapportionment if there is evidence that the appropriate state entity “will fail timely to perform” its duty to reapportion
holding that although Gingles involved multimember districts, the Gingles threshold requirements should be applied in § 2 vote- dilution challenges to single-member districts
holding that VRA should be interpreted broadly to cover single member district plans
holding that Section 2 remedies must respond to “the dilution proximately caused by” a challenged “electoral law, practice, or structure” (quoting Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Scalia

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Growe v. Emison

8 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.