1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 109 F.3d
  5. 109 F.3d 586 (1997)
 

SMITH v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP.

No. 95-16951.

109 F.3d 586 (1997)

Nichet SMITH and Renaldo Fowler, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT; Board of Directors, of Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District; James L. Diller; Howard W. Lydic; Eldon Rudd; Gilbert R. Rogers; Clarence C. Pendergast, Jr.; Fred J. Ash; James R. Marshall; Dwayne E. Dobson; Bruce B. Brooks; William W. Arnett; Mark W. Pace; Emil M. Rovey; sued in their official capacity as members of the council of Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District; Roy W. Cheatham; Clarence J. Duncan; Lester Mowry; Lawrence P. Schrader; Mario J. Herrera; Wayne A. Marietta; Kevin J. Johnson; Byron G. Williams; John E. Anderson; Lee Tregaskes; John A. Vanderwey; C. Dale Willis; Orland R. Hatch; Ben Butler; Elvin E. Fleming; Larry D. Rovey; Charles D. Copperinger; Robert L. Cook; Lloyd Lee Banning; David Rousseau; Dan C. McKinney, Jr.; Wayne A. Hart; Michael K. Gantzel; Dale Riggins; W. Curtis Dana; Edmund Navarro; Ann M. Burton; Mario J. Herrera; William P. Schrader; Robert G. Kempton; Wayne A. Weiler sued in their official capacity as members of the Council of Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District; Members of the Board of Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Decided March 24, 1997.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Timothy M. Hogan, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, Phoenix, Arizona, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Neil Vincent Wake, Bryan Cave, Phoenix, Arizona, for the defendants-appellees.

Before: FLETCHER, FARRIS, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge.

Nichet Smith and Renaldo Fowler ("Appellants") are African-Americans who reside within the boundaries of the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District ("District") but do not own real property within the District. Appellants claim that the criterion of land ownership for eligibility to vote in District elections violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 ("§ 2"), because only forty percent...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases