Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dickson v. Rucho

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 19, 2014No. 201PA12-2Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Beasley

I agree with the majority’s holding with respect to plaintiffs’ challenge under the “Good of the Whole” Clause in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of North Carolina. Nonetheless, because the twenty-six VRA districts at issue and two of the four non-VRA districts were created in direct contradiction to federal and state provisions, this Court should vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand the matter to the lower court for proper findings of fact and conclusions of law. I therefore respectfully dissent. Furthermore, there are several points of error, any of which would warrant…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Bartlett v. StricklandSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Hunt v. CromartieSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Thornburg v. GinglesSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Johnson v. De GrandySupreme Court of the United States · 1994

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

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

Powered by the Exa API