Skip to content


Nolan Vs. Rhodes - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number378 U.S. 556
AppellantNolan
RespondentRhodes
Excerpt:
.....john j. chester for appellees in no. 455. per curiam. the judgment below is reversed. reynolds v. sims, 377 u.s. 533 . the cases are remanded for further proceedings 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 reverse on the grounds stated in his opinion in reynolds v. sims, 377 u.s. 533, 587 . mr. justice stewart would affirm the judgment because the ohio system of legislative apportionment is page 378 u.s. 556, 557 clearly a rational one and clearly does not frustrate effective majority rule. mr. justice harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in reynolds v. sims, 377.....
Judgment:
NOLAN v. RHODES - 378 U.S. 556 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court NOLAN v. RHODES, 378 U.S. 556 (1964) 378 U.S. 556

NOLAN v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO. No. 454.
Decided June 22, 1964. *

Judgment reversed and cases remanded.

Reported below: 218 F. Supp. 953.

[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 455, Sive et al. v. Ellis et al., also on appeal from the same court.

Kenneth G. Weinberg and Stewart R. Jaffy for appellant in No. 454.

William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, and Hugh A. Sherer for appellees in No. 454.

Jerome Goldman, Robert P. Goldman and Harris Weston for appellants in No. 455.

William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, Gerald A. Donahue, First Assistant Attorney General, and John J. Chester for appellees in No. 455.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 . The cases are remanded for further proceedings 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 reverse on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 587 .

MR. JUSTICE STEWART would affirm the judgment because the Ohio system of legislative apportionment is

Page 378 U.S. 556, 557

clearly a rational one and clearly does not frustrate effective majority rule.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 589 .




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //