Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Jeffers v. Clinton

District Court, E.D. Arkansas

Decided January 26, 1990No. H-C-89-004Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

concurring and dissenting. (Eisele # 2)

In a dissenting opinion filed on the 7th of December 1989, I set forth my belief that this entire proceeding should have been dismissed because the plaintiffs waited without excuse until 1989 to challenge the redistricting plan adopted in 1981 and because of the prejudice caused thereby to the defendants, the people in the affected areas, and, indeed, to the integrity and reliability of the Court’s fact-finding function itself. Acknowledging the broad discretion given the chancellor in such equitable proceedings, I nevertheless concluded that it would be…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Massachusetts v. MellonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Jacobellis v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. Allen v. State Board of ElectionsSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  5. White v. RegesterSupreme Court of the United States · 1973

27 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