United States District Court E. D. Virginia, at Alexandria.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued March 10, 1965.
Decided April 9, 1965.
Judgment Affirmed October 25, 1965.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Edmund D. Campbell, Arlington, Va., and E. A. Prichard, Fairfax, Va., for plaintiffs, Harrison Mann et al.
Aubrey R. Bowles, Jr., and L. Paul Byrne, Richmond, Va., for Henrico plaintiff intervenors, Simeon A. Burnette et al.
Henry L. Marsh, III, and S. W. Tucker, Richmond, Va., for Richmond plaintiff intervenors, William S. Thornton et al.
Kermit L. Racey and Richard S. Wright, Jr., Woodstock, Va., for Shenandoah plaintiff intervenors, Jesse D. Funkhouser et al.
Henry E. Howell, Jr., Sidney H. Kelsey and Leonard B. Sachs, Norfolk, Va., for plaintiff intervenors, Charles L. Glanville et al.
R. D. McIlwaine, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia and Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va., for defendants Levin Nock Davis et al.
Henry T. Wickham and David J. Mays, Richmond, Va., special counsel for all defendants.
H. Ratcliffe Turner, Commonwealth's Atty., Henrico County, Richmond, Va., for defendants Helen D. Clevenger et al.
T. Gray Haddon, Commonwealth's Atty., City of Richmond, Richmond, Va., for defendants Thomas R. Miller et al.
William J. Hassan, Commonwealth's Atty., Arlington County, Arlington, Va., for defendants H. Bruce Green et al.
Ralph G. Louk, Commonwealth's Atty., Fairfax County, and Quin S. Elson, Fairfax, Va., for defendants Thomas P. Chapman, Jr., et al.
Alfred W. Whitehurst, Commonwealth's Atty., City of Norfolk, Norfolk, Va., for defendants William L. Prieur, Jr., et al.
Before BRYAN, Circuit Judge, and LEWIS and HOFFMAN, District Judges.
United States District Court E. D. Virginia, at Alexandria.
Judgment Affirmed October 25, 1965. See 86 S.Ct. 181.
ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
Virginia's 1964 reapportionment of the State into districts for the election of delegates and senators in her General Assembly, following our invalidation of the 1962 redistricting,1 is here attacked as denying Fourteenth Amendment equal protection of the laws. The assault is made in three separate intervening petitions in the original action...
Let's get started
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.
