Skip to content


Marshall Vs. Hare - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number378 U.S. 561
AppellantMarshall
RespondentHare
Excerpt:
.....and r. william rogers for beadle et al., appellees. per curiam. the judgment below is reversed. reynolds v. sims, 377 u.s. 533 ; lucas v. forty-fourth general assembly of colorado, 377 u.s. 713 . the case is 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 and mr. justice stewart would affirm the judgment because the michigan system of legislative apportionment is 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 . page 378 u.s. 561, 562 .....
Judgment:
MARSHALL v. HARE - 378 U.S. 561 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court MARSHALL v. HARE, 378 U.S. 561 (1964) 378 U.S. 561

MARSHALL ET AL. v. HARE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN. No. 962.
Decided June 22, 1964.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

Reported below: 227 F. Supp. 989.

Theodore Sachs for appellants.

Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General of Michigan, Stanton S. Faville, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and James R. Ramsey and Russell A. Searl, Assistant Attorneys General, for Hare et al.; and Edmund E. Shepherd and R. William Rogers for Beadle et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 ; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713 . The case is 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 and MR. JUSTICE STEWART would affirm the judgment because the Michigan system of legislative apportionment is 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 .

Page 378 U.S. 561, 562




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