Jefferson County Commission et al v. Tennant et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|January 25, 2013
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL the Supreme Court's 85 Judgment being dispositive of Count One of plaintiffs' Complaint, which asserts a numerical equivalence claim under Article I, § 2 of, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Four teenth Amendment to, the Constitution of the United States, and of the same claim comprising part of Count One of the intervening plaintiff's Complaint, Judgment on both claims is entered on behalf of the defendants. Construing defendants' suggestion to dismiss the remaining claims to allow them to proceed in State Court as a motion to dismiss, granting defendants' motion and Dismissing Counts Two and Three of plaintiffs' Complaint, together with the remainder of Count One of the intervening plaintiff's Complaint, without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate state court. Signed by United States Circuit Judge Robert Bruce King on 1/25/2013. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (skh)
|January 4, 2012
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER concluding that West Virginia's congressional apportionment was not accomplished in conformance with the Constitution of the United States; the plaintiffs are entitled to have the enactment declared null and void, a nd to have the Secretary of State permanently enjoined from conducting West Virginia's elections for Congress in accordance therewith; pursuant to the foregoing herein, the Court is compelled to declare S.B. 1008, as codified at West Virginia Co de Section 1-2-3, in contravention of the Constitution of the United States; the enforcement of said section by the defendants is permanently enjoined; the 2012 congressional elections will be conducted under an interim plan promulgated by the Court, subject to the following conditions set forth herein; in the absence of successful compliance with one of the foregoing conditions herein, the Court will, on or after January 17, 2012, be constrained to identify an interim plan for use in the 2012 c ongressional elections in West Virginia from among those currently in the record of this case, either the so-called "Perfect Plan" or Cooper Plan 4; any interim plan adopted by the Court may be substituted for and superseded by the Legislat ure and the Governor, so long as such substitution complies with the applicable constitutional mandate. The Court will retain jurisdiction in this case for such other and further proceedings as may be appropriate pending further order. Signed by United States Circuit Judge Robert Bruce King and United States District Judge Irene C. Berger on 1/4/2012. (cc: attys) (taq)
|January 3, 2012
DISSENTING OPINION agreeing that the plaintiffs have satisfied the first prong of Karcher - showing a variance from exact equality which could be avoided; disagreeing that the State has failed to demonstrate a proper justification for the variance; c oncluding that the State has violated neither Article I, § 2 of the Constitution of the United States nor Article I, § 4 of the Constitution of West Virginia; concluding that the second congressional district is compact as required by Article I, § 4 of the Constitution of West Virginia. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey, WVN, on 1/3/2012. (cc: attys) (taq)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?