Germano v. Kerner
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
CAMPBELL, Chief Judge.
In the lexicon of the legal profession this is another apportionment case. Plaintiffs have sought and appropriately been granted the present three-judge court. Title 28 § 2281 and § 2284.
The instant complaint, which for all practical purposes is a prototype of the complaint in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663, alleges that the plaintiffs, citizens, residents and qualified voters of the State of Illinois, have been denied equal protection and due process of the law by a 1954 Amendment to the Constitution of Illinois (Now Art. IV Section 6 of the…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Gomillion v. LightfootSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Gray v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- MacDougall v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Fergus v. MarksIllinois Supreme Court · 1926
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Livingston v. OgilvieIllinois Supreme Court · 1969
- In Re Apportionment of State Legislature—1964Michigan Supreme Court · 1964
- Baker v. CarrDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1965
- Germano v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Baker v. CarrDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1963
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.