Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Williams v. Moss 378 U.S. 558

← Cases

Williams v. Moss

378 U.S. 558 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1964-06-22 Docket No. 476 English

Judges Mr. Justice Clark would affirm on the merits on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587.; Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that Oklahoma’s system of legislative apportionment violates the Equal Protection Clause.; 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. 558
WILLIAMS, TREASURER OF OKLAHOMA, et al. v. MOSS et al.
No. 476.
Decided June 22, 1964.[1]
Charles Nesbitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, for appellants in No. 476.
Frank Carter for appellants in No. 534.
Jim A. Rinehart for appellants in No. 546.
p. 559
Sid White for appellee Moss in No. 476.
Norman E. Reynolds, Jr., pro se, appellee in Nos. 476 and 534.
Delmer L. Stagner and LeRoy Powers for Council of Democratic Neighborhood Clubs in Nos. 476 and 534.

The judgment below is affirmed on the merits. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 . The cases are remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, 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, should that become necessary.

Mr. Justice Clark would affirm on the merits on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 , 587.

Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that Oklahoma’s system of legislative apportionment violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 , 589.

Cases cited