Legal Opinion
Baker v. Carr
District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Decided July 31, 1959No. Civ. A. 2724PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILLIAM E. MILLER, District Judge.
It is urgently and ably insisted by defendants that the federal question sought to be made by the complaint is “obviously without merit” and that the Court under the doctrine of Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 80, 54 S.Ct. 3, 78 L.Ed. 152, should therefore dismiss the action without taking steps to constitute 'a court of three judges under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2281.
Without undertaking a detailed resumé of the allegations of the complaint, the short of the matter is that under the Constitution of Tennessee the members of the House of Representatives are limited to 99 in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ex Parte PoreskySupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Colegrove v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- MacDougall v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- United States v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- South v. PetersSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- W. M. C. A., Inc. v. SimonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1962
- Baker v. CarrDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1965
- Bernard Feinberg v. The Federal Deposit Insurance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1975
- Liveright v. Joint Committee of Gen. Assem. of State of Tenn.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1968
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.