Legal Opinion
Nixon v. Kent County, Mich.
District Court, W.D. Michigan
Decided March 19, 1992No. 1:91-cv-00792PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ENSLEN, District Judge.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(a), plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of the apportionment plan enacted by defendants for the election districts of the Kent County Board of Commissioners and requiring defendants to implement an apportionment plan including two districts in which minorities comprise effective voting majorities. Plaintiffs — African-Americans and individuals of Hispanic national origin — brought this Voting Rights Act case claiming that defendant Kent County Apportionment Commission (Apportionment…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- University of Texas v. CamenischSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Sampson v. MurraySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Thornburg v. GinglesSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- City of Mobile v. BoldenSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Chisom v. RoemerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Nixon v. Kent CountyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- United States v. City of EuclidDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2008
- Aldasoro v. KennersonDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1995
- McGee v. City of Warrensville HeightsDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1998
- Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. MFS Intelenet of Michigan, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1998
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.