# 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/6937813

## 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 Moore
- **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/6937813

## 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

MOORE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
For the reasons ably explained by Judge Keith in Parts I, II, and IIIA of his dissenting opinion, traditional principles of statutory interpretation require that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act be interpreted to include within a “protected class” a coalition of groups of persons protected by the Voting Rights Act. Therefore I DISSENT from the majority opinion and join in Parts I, II, and IIIA of Judge Keith’s dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6937813. Public record. Not legal advice.