General
NOLAN v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, et al.
378 U.S. 556·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
Mr. Justice Clark would reverse on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587. · Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment because the Ohio system of legislative apportionment is clearly a rational one and clearly does not frustrate effective majority rule. · Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.
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
NOLAN v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, et al.
No. 454.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Kenneth G. Weinberg and Stewart R. Jaffy for appellant in No. 454.
William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, and Hugh A. Sherer for appellees in No. 454.
Jerome Goldman, Robert P. Goldman and Harris Weston for appellants in No. 455.
William B, Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, Gerald A. Donahue, First Assistant Attorney General, and John J. Chester for appellees in No. 455.
Together with No. 455, Sive et al. v. Ellis et al., also on appeal from the same court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533. The cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views stated in our opinions In Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds.
Mr. Justice Clark would reverse on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587.
Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment because the Ohio system of legislative apportionment is clearly a rational one and clearly does not frustrate effective majority rule.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.