Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Nolan v. Rhodes 378 U.S. 556

← Cases

Nolan v. Rhodes

378 U.S. 556 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1964-06-22 Docket No. 454 English

Judges 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 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.

Delivered by Per Curiam.

Contents

Majority

p. 556
NOLAN v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, et al.
No. 454.
Decided June 22, 1964.[1]
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.

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

p. 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.

Cases cited