Legal Opinion

In Re Senate Bill 177

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided July 13, 1972No. 73-72PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

This is a challenge to the reapportionment of the State Senate by the General Assembly. Under the provisions of Chapter II, § 18, of the Vermont Constitution such a reapportionment is mandatory after the taking of each census. In 1965, 17 V.S.A. §§ 1901-11 were enacted to provide the machinery for carrying out this obligation.

Briefly outlined, the procedure first calls for proceedings before a legislative apportionment board, looking to the presentation of a plan of reapportionment to the legislative body. Under the law this plan is to be treated as a bill and passed upon by both houses of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Swann v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Kilgarlin v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Parsons v. BuckleySupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Buckley v. HoffDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 1964
  5. Mikell v. RousseauSupreme Court of Vermont · 1962

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Lockert v. CrowellTennessee Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Veilleux v. SpringerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1973
  3. In Re Reapportionment of Town of HartlandSupreme Court of Vermont · 1993
  4. Aronstam v. CashmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1974
  5. Brooks v. HobbieSupreme Court of Alabama · 1993

8 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