Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Williams v. Moss

378 U.S. 558

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1964-06-22
Topic
bankruptcy

Per Curiam. The judgment below is affirmed on the merits. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Williams v. Moss. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
18 opinions
WILLIAMSv. MOSS,378 U.S. 558(1964)
WILLIAMS, TREASURER OF OKLAHOMA, ET AL.v. MOSS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
OKLAHOMA.
No. 476.
Decided June 22, 1964.fn*
Judgment affirmed on the merits, and cases remanded for further proceedings consistent with views stated inReynoldsv.Sims,377 U.S. 533.

Reported below:220 F. Supp. 149.
Charles Nesbitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, for appellants in No. 476.Frank Carterfor appellants in No. 534.Jim A. Rinehartfor appellants in No. 546.Page 559Sid Whitefor appellee Moss in No. 476.Norman E. Reynolds, Jr., pro se, appellee in Nos. 476 and 534.Delmer L. StagnerandLeRoy Powersfor Council of Democratic Neighborhood Clubs in Nos. 476 and 534.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment below is affirmed on the merits.Reynoldsv.Sims,377 U.S. 533. The cases are remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, consistent with the views stated in our opinions inReynoldsv.Simsand in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along withReynolds, should that become necessary.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK would affirm on the merits on the grounds stated in his opinion inReynoldsv.Sims,377 U.S. 533,587.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that Oklahoma's system of legislative apportionment violates the Equal Protection Clause.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion inReynoldsv.Sims,377 U.S. 533,589.Page 560
  1. Page 558 Together with No. 534,Oklahoma Farm Bureau et al. v.Mosset al.,and No. 546,Baldwin et al. v.Moss,both also on appeal from the same court. ↩