stating the jurisdictional test for Section 2284 as whether “there exists a non-frivolous constitutional challenge to the apportionment of a statewide legislative body” (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- stating the jurisdictional test for Section 2284 as whether “there exists a non-frivolous constitutional challenge to the apportionment of a statewide legislative body” (emphasis added)
- holding that three-judge courts are mandatory for cases encompassed within § 2284(a)
- describing the test for section 2284(a) as whether “there exists a non-frivolous constitutional challenge to the apportionment of a statewide legislative body”
- “[T]he sufficiency of the complaint for three-judge jurisdictional purposes must be determined by the claims stated in the complaint and not by the way the facts turn out.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with Chief Judge Merritt that the constitutional claim must be heard by a *990 three-judge court. And, while I agree with Judge Kennedy that the district judge had jurisdiction to consider the statutory claim, I would affirm the district judge’s decision on that claim for many of the same reasons given by Judge Guy in support of his dissent filed with the vacated panel opinion in this cause (reported in Advance Sheet only at 895 F.2d 1078 ).