Legal Opinion

Hellar v. Cenarrusa

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 16, 1984No. 15201PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUNTLEY, Justice.

We have been petitioned, pursuant to our retained jurisdiction in Hellar v. Cenarrusa, 106 Idaho 571, 682 P.2d 524 (1984) (.Hellar II), to rule upon the constitutionality of the legislative reapportionment scheme enacted as H.B. AS 746 in the closing hours of the recent legislative session.

Our decision in Hellar II held in pertinent part that “... the 1984 election shall be conducted under [reapportionment] Plan 14-B ... unless the legislature enacts a constitutional alternative reapportionment plan,” and that “should an alternative plan be enacted and signed into law, this…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. White v. RegesterSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Mahan v. HowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Chapman v. MeierSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. Connor v. FinchSupreme Court of the United States · 1977

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Terrazas v. RamirezTexas Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Miles v. Idaho Power Co. Ex Rel. EvansIdaho Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State v. BennionIdaho Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Smith v. Idaho Commission on RedistrictingIdaho Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Rudeen v. CenarrusaIdaho Supreme Court · 2001

14 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