Supreme Court of the United States, 1964

Marshall v. Hare

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 22, 1964 · Clark, Michigan, Sims

378 U.S. 561; 84 S. Ct. 1912; 12 L. Ed. 2d 1036; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 847 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Theodore Sachs for appellants., Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General of Michigan, Stanton S. Faville, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and James R. Ramsey and Russell A. Searl, Assistant Attorneys General, for Hare et al.; and Edmund E. Shepherd and R. William Rogers for Beadle et al., appellees.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Apportionment of State Legislature—1982 (Mich. 1982)
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State (Mich. 2018)
Butcher v. Bloom (Pa. 1966)
In re Apportionment of State Legislature-1964 (Mich. 1964)
Larios v. Cox (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 2004)
Spivey v. State of Ohio (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1998)
In re Apportionment, State Legislature-1992 (Mich. 1992)
Neff v. Secretary of State (Mich. 1992)
Silver v. Jordan (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1965)
Honsey v. Donovan (D. Minn. 1964)
League of Nebraska Municipalities v. Marsh (United States District Court, Nebraska 1964)
Sailors v. Board of Ed. of Kent Cty. (Supreme Court of the United States 1967)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U. S. 713. The case is 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 and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment because the Michigan 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.