Legal Opinion

Person v. Cooney

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 27, 2000No. 98-36157PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

CANBY, Circuit Judge:

Eleven American Indian plaintiffs appeal the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants, the Governor and Secretary of State of Montana. The plaintiffs contend that the 1992 redistricting plan for Montana’s State House of Representatives and Senate dilutes the voting strength of American Indians in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. Plaintiffs further urge that Montana’s Districting and Apportionment Commission adopted the 1992 redistricting plan with a discriminatory purpose, an action that would also violate § 2 of the Voting…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Thornburg v. GinglesSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Johnson v. De GrandySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. Growe v. EmisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. Hunter v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Earl Old Person v. Mike CooneyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API