# Nixon v. Kent County

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · February 2, 1996 · 76 F.3d 1381

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6937812

## Case

- **Full name:** Debra NIXON, Johnny Griffin, Sr., Bill Brown, Juan Jimenez, Sara Ramirez, and Marshall Chavez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KENT COUNTY, Thomas Shearer, Maurice DeJonge, John Boerema, and William Forsyth
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 2, 1996
- **Citations:** 76 F.3d 1381; 1996 WL 38985
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Daughtrey
- **Judges:** Batchelder, Boggs, Daughtrey, Jones, Keith, Kennedy, Martin, Merritt, Milburn, Moore, Nelson, Norris, Ryan, Siler, Suhrheinrich
- **Cited by:** 42 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6937812

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the amendments to the Voting Rights Act did “not ... reflect a broad and boundless ‘trend’ to expand the Act to protect classes not described in the Act, or to protect combinations of classes not described in the Act”

## Opinion text

DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I join Judge Keith’s dissent and eloquent defense of the laudable goals of the Voting Rights Act, as amended. I write separately, however, to underscore my firm belief and fervent hope that the majority’s decision today is guided only by a failure to adhere to the spirit and the letter of that Act and the analysis mandated in Thornburg v. Cingles, 478 U.S. 30 , 106 S.Ct. 2752 , 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986), and not by any improper or unjust intent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6937812. Public record. Not legal advice.