Skip to main content
E.D. Arkansas· 3/8/1994

Jeffers v. Tucker

Citations

  • 847 F. Supp. 655
  • 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2803
  • 1994 WL 71471

How courts have described this case

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

  • upholding the State Board of Apportionment's post 1990 census plan (for the 1992 elections and thereafter) over the objections of the plaintiffs
  • plaintiffs’ plan was inconsistent with “spirit of Shaw,” and first Gingles precondition was therefore not satisfied, where proposed districts “cut across numerous communities and political boundaries”
  • peculiar shape of district, including extension of “a series of long, slender fingers,” while “nowhere nearly so unusual in shape as the ... district at issue in Shaw,” was one basis on which district was found not to be compact

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Arnold, Eisele, Howard

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

Other cases named Jeffers v. Tucker

2 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.