Legal Opinion
Peterson v. Borst
Indiana Supreme Court
Decided March 27, 2003No. 49S02-0302-CV-71PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
2Per curiam
Appellee, Councillor Philip C. Borst, seeks rehearing following our per curiam opinion in Peterson v. Borst, 786 N.E.2d 668 (Ind.2003). In that opinion, we adopted a redistricting plan for the City-County Council of the City of Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana ("Council"), as part of our appellate review of the trial court judgment entered pursuant to Indiana Code § 86-3-4-3(d) (1998). Coun-cillor Borst seeks rehearing on four issues.
Voting Rights Act
The petition for rehearing first asserts that the redistricting plan this Court adopted is impermissibly…
3Cases cited11 opinions
- Thornburg v. GinglesSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Johnson v. De GrandySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Growe v. EmisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Voinovich v. QuilterSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Abrams v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by1 opinion
- Mayor Gregory Ballard v. . Maggie Lewis, John Barth, and Vernon BrownIndiana Supreme Court · 2014