Legal Opinion

Heitmanis v. Austin

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided March 29, 1990No. 88-1214PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants, George Heitmanis, et al. (Party Delegates), appeal an order denying summary judgment for plaintiffs and dismissing the complaint in this action challenging the constitutionality of the Michigan Election Law. For the following reasons, we reverse.

I

The Michigan Election Law (the Election Law), which generally regulates the political party conventions in the State of Michigan, grants automatic delegate status to party nominees and party legislators at state and county conventions. M.C.L.A. § 168.591 et seq. (West 1988). Specifically, *523the…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Elizabeth L. Rouse v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation Uaw Non-Contributory PlanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
  2. Milgrom v. BursteinDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2005
  3. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. BatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1995
  4. Heitmanis v. AustinCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
  5. Louisiana Republican Party v. FosterSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1996

21 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