Legal Opinion
Ezell Armour v. The State of Ohio
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided February 15, 1991No. 88-4040PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MERRITT, Chief Judge.
We conclude in this legislative reapportionment case from Ohio that the District Court should have invoked the procedures established in 28 U.S.C. § 2284 for convening a district court of three judges, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand with instructions for the District Court to follow the procedures set out for convening such a court.
In 1988, plaintiffs filed this action challenging the fragmentation and division of the black vote in Mahoning County, Ohio (Youngstown) in state legislative districts 52 and 53 of the Ohio House of…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Thornburg v. GinglesSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Allen v. State Board of ElectionsSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Ex Parte PoreskySupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Chapman v. MeierSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Morales v. TurmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Armour v. State of OhioDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1991
- LaRouche, Lyndon H. v. Fowler, Donald L.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1998
- Rodriguez v. PatakiDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- People Ex Rel. Burris v. RyanIllinois Supreme Court · 1992
- People Ex Rel. Burris v. RyanIllinois Supreme Court · 1991
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.