§Why CasetextPricing

Common Cause et al v. Rucho et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re

9 Cited authorities

  1. Landis v. North American Co.

    299 U.S. 248 (1936)   Cited 8,487 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"

  2. Cooper v. Harris

    137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017)   Cited 207 times
    Holding that to establish a racial gerrymandering claim under the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must show "that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district"

  3. North Carolina v. Covington

    137 S. Ct. 1624 (2017)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing special-election injunction in redistricting case

  4. Williford v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

    715 F.2d 124 (4th Cir. 1983)   Cited 297 times
    Holding that courts possess the inherent power to stay an action to ensure the "efficient management of their dockets"

  5. Conkright v. Frommert

    556 U.S. 1401 (2009)   Cited 24 times

    No. 08–810 08A884. 04-30-2009 Sally L. CONKRIGHT et al. v. Paul J. FROMMERT et al. Justice GINSBURG, Circuit Justice. Opinion Sally L. Conkright, Administrator of the Xerox Corporation Pension Plan, et al., have reapplied for a stay of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In their initial application, filed October 16, 2008, the applicants sought a stay pending the filing and disposition of their petition for certiorari. The Second Circuit's decision in their

  6. Johnson v. Miller

    864 F. Supp. 1354 (S.D. Ga. 1994)   Cited 31 times
    Finding "[i]n sum, the current districting plan is not reasonably necessary to comply with Sections 2 or 5 of the VRA. Since no compelling state interest other than VRA compliance is evident, the plan fails strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment"

  7. Degrandy v. Wetherell

    794 F. Supp. 1076 (N.D. Fla. 1992)   Cited 19 times
    Finding that Florida's current congressional districts violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, the one-person-one-vote principle and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 1973

  8. Cromartie v. Hunt

    133 F. Supp. 2d 407 (E.D.N.C. 2000)   Cited 10 times
    Explaining that Dr. Weber testified that Dr. Peterson's analysis "ignor[ed] the core," "ha[d] not been appropriately done," and was "unreliable"

  9. Cane v. Worcester County, Maryland

    874 F. Supp. 695 (D. Md. 1995)

    Civ. No. Y-92-3226 February 21, 1995. C. Christopher Brown, Baltimore, MD, and Deborah A. Jeon, Cambridge, MD, for plaintiffs. Edward H. Hammond, Jr., Ocean City, MD and Benjamin E. Griffith, Cleveland, MI, for defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION JOSEPH YOUNG, Senior District Judge. On January 6, 1995, the Court ordered Worcester County to adopt the electoral system described in the Court's Opinion. The plaintiffs filed a motion for modification of the judgment and the defendants ("County") filed a motion