Supreme Court of the United States, 1964

Pinney v. Butterworth

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 22, 1964 · Basis, Clause, Connecticut, Harlan, Insofar, Sims, Stated, System, Violates, Would

378 U.S. 564; 84 S. Ct. 1918; 12 L. Ed. 2d 1037; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 851 (United States Reports)

Counsel

H. Meade Alcorn, Jr., James William Moore and Norman K. Parsells for appellants., Richard H. Bowerman for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

25 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

Wade v. Nolan (Alaska 1966)
Harris v. Anderson (Kan. 1965)
Butterworth v. Dempsey (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1965)
Terrazas v. Ramirez (Tex. 1991)
Kapral v. Jepson (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1967)
Butcher v. Bloom (Pa. 1966)
Feehan v. Marcone (Conn. 2019)
Feehan v. Marcone (Conn. 2019)
Feehan v. Marcone (Conn. 2019)
League of United Latin American Citizens, Council 4434 v. Clements (5th Cir. 1989)
Logan v. O'NEILL (Conn. 1982)
Reverend Herman L. Driskell v. Honorable Edwin W. Edwards, Governor, State of Louisiana, Etc. (5th Cir. 1975)
Gaffney v. Cummings (Supreme Court of the United States 1973)
Cummings v. Meskill (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1972)
Lance v. Board of Education of County of Roane (W. Va. 1969)
Lance v. Board of Education (W. Va. 1969)
State Ex Rel. Tomblin v. Bivens (W. Va. 1966)
Armentrout v. Schooler (Mo. 1966)
Honsey v. Donovan (D. Minn. 1964)
Education/instruccion, Inc. v. Thomas Moore, Individually and as Chairman of Capitol Regional Planningagency (2d Cir. 1975)
Baker v. Carr (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 1965)
City of Rochester v. County of Monroe (New York Supreme Court 1982)
Giordano v. Amity Regional High School District 5 ex rel. Chase (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1970)
Hyatt v. United Aircraft Corp. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1970)

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 of the Court

Per Curiam.

The judgment below is affirmed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533. The case is remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, 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 affirm the judgment on the basis of his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587. Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that Connecticut’s system of legislative apportionment violates the Equal Protection Clause. 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.