Properties (70)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
| gptkbp:caseOutcome |
Analysis of the case's outcomes.
Discussion on electoral fairness. Impact on electoral processes. Impact on future electoral laws. Importance in understanding electoral law. Summary of case documentation. Summary of judicial precedents set by the case. Summary of legal analyses related to the case. Partially affirmed and partially reversed lower court ruling. Impact on judicial approaches to electoral fairness. Court_ruled_that_the_Indiana_plan_diluted_votes. |
| gptkbp:caseTypes |
Constitutional law case
Discussion on political representation. No. 84-1340 Summary of judicial review outcomes. Political significance in the context of representation. |
| gptkbp:citedBy |
478 U.S. 109
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:John_Davis
gptkb:Robert_Bandemer Set a judicial precedent for evaluating gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional if it violates equal protection. Ruling highlighted the importance of fair representation. Appellate_court_case |
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
June 30, 1986 |
| gptkbp:filedIn |
April 15, 1986
|
| gptkbp:firstClaim |
Led to further scrutiny of redistricting practices.
|
| gptkbp:hasPoliticalParty |
Political context of the case.
|
| gptkbp:historicalEvent |
Originated_from_a_challenge_to_Indiana's_redistricting_plan.
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Davis v. Bandemer
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced future gerrymandering cases
|
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
Dissent argued against judicial intervention in political matters. Impact on how states draw district lines. Majority opinion emphasized fairness in representation. Justices_Rehnquist,_O'Connor,_and_White Supreme_Court_exercised_judicial_review. |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
Federal jurisdiction
|
| gptkbp:lawEnforcement |
Summary of the case's impact on judicial practices.
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Analyzed the effects of districting on electoral outcomes.
|
| gptkbp:legalStatus |
Gerrymandering
Set a precedent for future gerrymandering litigation. Partisan gerrymandering framework established. Redistricting after the 1980 Census Summary of the case's legal outcomes. First_Supreme_Court_case_to_address_partisan_gerrymandering Court_found_that_the_Indiana_redistricting_plan_was_unconstitutional. |
| gptkbp:notableFeature |
Frequently referenced in legal literature.
Documented in legal databases. Often studied in law schools. Judicial review of state redistricting. Relevant in discussions of electoral integrity. Significant in the context of electoral fairness. Summary of the case's significance. Analyzed the balance between state and federal powers. |
| gptkbp:outcome |
Court_ruled_that_partisan_gerrymandering_claims_are_justiciable
|
| gptkbp:politicalParty |
gptkb:Justice_William_J._Brennan_Jr.
Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and Stevens |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Partisan gerrymandering can be challenged in court
|
| gptkbp:relatedPatent |
gptkb:Vieth_v._Jubelirer
Equal protection clause Context of political representation. Implications for future redistricting efforts. Influenced_cases_like_League_of_United_Latin_American_Citizens_v._Perry. |
| gptkbp:significance |
Established a standard for evaluating gerrymandering.
|
| gptkbp:state |
gptkb:Indiana
|
| gptkbp:team |
Legacy in the fight against gerrymandering.
Legal significance in the context of gerrymandering. Legal framework established for evaluating gerrymandering. |