Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

Whitcomb v. Chavis

Document Cited in 36 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Decision Date06 February 1970
PartiesEdgar D. WHITCOMB, Governor of the State of Indiana, appellant, v. Patrick CHAVIS et al. No. ____
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

396 U.S. 1064

90 S.Ct. 761

24 L.Ed.2d 757

Edgar D. WHITCOMB, Governor of the State of Indiana, appellant,

v. Patrick CHAVIS et al.

No. ____.

Supreme Court of the United States

February 6, 1970

James Manahan, on the motion.

The emergency motion to vacate or modify the stay order of February 2, 1970, is denied. The motion to advance is denied without prejudice to its renewal following the filing of the statement as to jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissenting from the denial of the motion to vacate or modify the stay order of February 2, 1970:

'After a trial on June 17 and 18, 1969, a three-judge District Court entered an order on July 28, 1969, in which it held the multi-member districting provisions of the present Indiana apportionment statutes unconstitutional as they applied to Marion County, Indiana. The State was given until October 1, 1969, to enact statutes redistricting the State so as to correct the constitutional infirmity. Upon the State's failure to enact such statutes, the District Court, on December 15, 1969, entered an order establishing legislative districts in the State. This Court, on February 2, 1970, granted a stay of the District Court's December 15 order pending the filing and disposition of an appeal from that order.

'The appellees have now filed a motion to vacate the stay. I would grant the motion. The constitutionality of the present Indiana apportionment scheme was thoroughly briefed and argued in the three-judge District Court below. There is no reason to disturb the order of that court pending the disposition of the appeal by this Court. The date for the commencement of filing for the November 1970 election to the General Assembly is February 24, 1970. The State contends that without a stay it will be forced to conduct the forthcoming election under the reapportionment plan of the District Court. By granting the stay, however, this Court has equally forced the appellees to go through the election under the present scheme which was held unconstitutional by the District Court. Under these circumstances, I see no reason to stay the order of the District Court.'

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Whitcomb v. Chavis
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1971
    ...25 L.Ed.2d 392 (1970), and the State's motion for stay of judgment was granted pending our final action on this case, 396 U.S. 1055, 90 S.Ct. 748, 24 L.Ed.2d 757 (1970), thus permitting the 1970 elections to be held under the existing apportionment statutes declared unconstitutional by the ......
  • Williams v. United States Elkanich v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1971
    ...which intervened when the appeal from denial of petitioner's § 2255 application was pending in the Court of Appeals. 396 U.S. 1057, 90 S.Ct. 760, 24 L.Ed.2d 757 (1970). We affirm the judgments in both Aside from an insubstantial claim by Williams that his arrest was invalid, 1 neither petit......
  • Raleigh Wake Citizens Ass'n v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • February 26, 2016
    ...v. Klahr, 403 U.S. 108, 113–15, 91 S.Ct. 1803, 29 L.Ed.2d 352 (1971) ; 166 F.Supp.3d 594 Whitcomb v. Chavis, 396 U.S. 1055, 90 S.Ct. 748, 24 L.Ed.2d 757 (1970) ; Kilgarlin, 386 U.S. at 121, 87 S.Ct. 820 ; Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 585–86, 84 S.Ct. 1362 ; accord Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, ......
  • Kostick v. Nago
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • May 22, 2012
    ...Project, 344 F.3d at 918 (citing Ely v. Klahr, 403 U.S. 108, 113, 115, 91 S.Ct. 1803, 29 L.Ed.2d 352 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 396 U.S. 1055, 90 S.Ct. 748, 24 L.Ed.2d 757 (1970); Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U.S. 120, 121, 87 S.Ct. 820, 17 L.Ed.2d 771 (1967) (per curiam)). We find Nago's explan......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT