Legal Opinion

Legislature v. Reinecke

California Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 1972No. Docket Nos. Sac. 7917, 7919, 7923PublishedCited by 15 opinions

George H. Murphy, Legislative Counsel, for Petitioners in No. 7917. No appearance for other Petitioners or Respondents.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

THE COURT.

In our opinion herein we stated: “We retain jurisdiction to draft new reapportionment plans for the elections of 1974 through 1980 in the event that the Legislature does not enact valid legislative and congressional reapportionment statutes by the close of its 1972 regular session.” (Legislature v. Reinecke (1972) 6 Cal.3d 595, 604 [99 Cal.Rptr. 481, 492 P.2d 385].) The Senate of the State of California now requests that we modify the condition upon which we will exercise our retained jurisdiction to state that we will not exercise such jurisdiction if the Legislature, in…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Legislature v. ReineckeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Terrazas v. RamirezTexas Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Legislature v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Assembly v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Legislature v. ReineckeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Wilson v. EuCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991

10 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