Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
CONNOR et al. v. COLEMAN, JUDGE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, et al., 1979 — 441 U.S. 792 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
CONNOR et al. v. COLEMAN, JUDGE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, et al.
441 U.S. 79260 L. Ed. 2d 646·Supreme Court of the United States·1979
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the decision on this petition.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
CONNOR et al. v. COLEMAN, JUDGE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, et al.
No. 78-1013.
Decided May 21, 1979
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
On March 26, 1979, we granted leave to petitioners to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to adopt a plan for the reapportionment of the Mississippi Legislature. 440 U. S. 612. The order granting leave recited that we continued for 30 days our consideration of the petition.
The Clerk of the District Court has now formally advised the Clerk of this Court that on April 13, 1979, the District Court entered a final judgment specifying a court-ordered plan for the reapportionment of the legislature and for elections to be conducted in the coming summer. The District Court Clerk has also stated that all parties to the litigation have announced in open court that there will be no appeal. The petition for a writ of mandamus is therefore denied.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the decision on this petition.