# Ezell Armour v. The State of Ohio

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · February 15, 1991 · 925 F.2d 987

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9481319

## Case

- **Full name:** Ezell ARMOUR, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. the STATE OF OHIO, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 15, 1991
- **Citations:** 925 F.2d 987; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 2491; 1991 WL 16767
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Norris
- **Judges:** Merritt, Keith, Kennedy, Martin, Jones, Krupansky, Milburn, Guy, Nelson, Ryan, Boggs, Norris, Suhrheinrich, Wellford
- **Cited by:** 25 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/9481319

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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 ).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9481319. Public record. Not legal advice.