1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 254 F.Supp.
  5. 254 F.Supp. 708 (1966)
 

O'SHIELDS v. McNAIR

Civ. A. Nos. 5053, 66-17.

254 F.Supp. 708 (1966)

Dexter O'SHIELDS and Hazel H. O'Shields, Plaintiffs, v. Robert E. McNAIR, Governor of South Carolina, O. Frank Thornton, Secretary of State of South Carolina, Edgar A. Brown, Speaker pro tem. acting President of the South Carolina Senate, and Lovick O. Thomas, Clerk of the Senate of the South Carolina General Assembly, Defendants, James P. Mozingo, III, Intervenor. Michael J. MUNGO, Plaintiff, v. Robert E. McNAIR, Governor of South Carolina, O. Frank Thornton, Secretary of State of South Carolina, Solomon Blatt, Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives and Inez Watson, Clerk of the House of Representatives of South Carolina General Assembly, Defendants.

United States District Court D. South Carolina.

February 28, 1966.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Paul M. Moore, Spartanburg, S. C., Wade S. Weatherford, Jr., Gaffney, S. C., attorneys for plaintiffs Shields.

George I. Alley, Theodore W. Law, Jr., Columbia, S. C. (Law, Kirkland, Aaron & Alley, Columbia, S. C., on brief), for plaintiff Mungo.

David W. Robinson, J. Means McFadden, and Clinch Heyward Belser, Columbia, S. C., for defendants Solomon Blatt and Inez Watson.

Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., C. T. Goolsby, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and James B. Ellisor, Asst. Atty. Gen., for remaining defendants.

E. N. Zeigler, Florence, S. C., amicus curiae.

Henry Hammer, Columbia, S. C., James P. Mozingo, III, D. Kenneth Baker, Darlington, S. C., for intervenor, Mozingo.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit, and MARTIN and HEMPHILL, District Judges.

HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit.

In these cases, we are asked to consider the constitutionality of a recent statutory scheme for the reapportionment of South Carolina's Senate and the provisions of the South Carolina Constitution of 1895 requiring the periodic reapportionment of the House of Representatives. We find no constitutional infirmity in the present apportionment of the House of Representatives, and we approve the statutory plan for reapportionment...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases