Legal Opinion
Wilson v. Eu
California Supreme Court
Decided January 27, 1992No. S022835PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LUCAS, C. J.
In these mandate proceedings, we are called on to resolve the impasse created by the failure of the Legislature and Governor to adopt congressional, legislative and State Board of Equalization reapportionment plans in time for the forthcoming 1992 Primary and General Elections. (See Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 1.)
On September 23, 1991, Governor Wilson vetoed the plans submitted to him by the Legislature. On that same day, an attempted override of the *712vetoes failed, and the Legislature recessed for the remainder of the year. On September 25, 1991, because we lacked assurance…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Regents of the University of California v. BakkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Thornburg v. GinglesSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Wesberry v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Fullilove v. KlutznickSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- State v. RizzoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- Beauprez v. AvalosSupreme Court of Colorado · 2002
- DeWitt v. WilsonDistrict Court, E.D. California · 1994
- Benavidez v. EuCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- In Re Legislative Districting of the StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.