Legal Opinion
LaComb v. Growe
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided March 11, 1982No. Civ. 4-81-414PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION.
This Court is faced with the difficult and sensitive task of reapportioning the State of Minnesota into eight congressional districts of equal size. We face this task because the State Legislature has failed to perform it.
We must base our decision on one of two conflicting principles. The first is to protect the incumbent Congressmen. That end is accomplished by making only those changes in present district lines necessary to correct population inequities.
The second alternative is to afford equal representation to all regions of the State. That end is accomplished by…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Mahan v. HowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- White v. WeiserSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- City of New Brighton v. Metropolitan CouncilSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Emison v. GroweDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1992
- Arizonans for Fair Representation v. SymingtonDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 1992
- Hippert v. RitchieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Hippert v. RitchieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Billie Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 2021
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.