TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Legislature v. Reinecke

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Et Al., Petitioners, v. ED REINECKE, as Lieutenant Governor, Etc., Et Al., Respondents; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Secretary of State, Etc., Petitioner, v. RONALD REAGAN, as Governor, Etc., Respondent; THIRTY TWO MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Petitioners, v. RONALD REAGAN, as Governor, Etc., Et Al., Respondents

Legislature v. Reinecke, 496 P.2d 464 (Cal. 1972)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 10, 1972
Docket
Nos. Sac. 7917, 7919, 7923
Citations
496 P.2d 4647 Cal. 3d 92101 Cal. Rptr. 5521972 Cal. LEXIS 182
Summary
George H. Murphy, Legislative Counsel, for Petitioners in No. 7917. No appearance for other Petitioners or Respondents.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion

*93 Opinion THE COURT.

In our opinion herein we stated: “We retain jurisdiction to draft new reapportionment plans for the elections of 1974 through 1980 in the event that the Legislature does not enact valid legislative and congressional reapportionment statutes by the close of its 1972 regular session.”

(Legislature v. Reinecke (1972) 6 Cal.3d 595, 604 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 481 , 492 P.2d 385 ].) The Senate of the State of California now requests that we modify the condition upon which we will exercise our retained jurisdiction to state that we will not exercise such jurisdiction if the Legislature, in 1972, enacts valid legislative and congressional reapportionment statutes at a special session. The Senate bases its request on the belief that it will be impossible to reach agreement on reappartionment legislation until after the general election in November 1972, and on the fact that a postponement of adjournment of the 1972 regular session until after the November election would delay the effective date of many statutes of great importance to the people of the state. (See Cal. Const., art. IV, § 8, subd. (c).)

We deem the Senate’s request reasonable and the reasons therefore persuasive. Accordingly, we will not exercise our retained jurisdiction herein if the Legislature, in 1972, enacts valid legislative and congressional reapportionment statutes either during, its current regular session or at a special session called for that purpose.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1973: 21975: 11982: 11983: 11988: 11991: 21993: 12012: 119732026peak 1973 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Glendale City Employees' Ass'n v. City of Glendale540 P.2d 609 (Cal. 1975)
  2. Terrazas v. Ramirez829 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1991)
  3. Legislature v. Deukmejian669 P.2d 17 (Cal. 1983)
  4. Assembly v. Deukmejian639 P.2d 939 (Cal. 1982)
  5. Legislature v. Reinecke516 P.2d 6 (Cal. 1973)
  6. Vandermost v. Bowen269 P.3d 446 (Cal. 2012) · Concurrence

Most recent

  1. Vandermost v. Bowen269 P.3d 446 (Cal. 2012) · Concurrence
  2. Brooks v. Hobbie631 So. 2d 883 (Ala. 1993)
  3. Terrazas v. Ramirez829 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1991)
  4. Wilson v. Eu816 P.2d 1306 (Cal. 1991)
  5. Untitled California Attorney General OpinionNo. 88-307 (Cal. Att'y Gen. July 6, 1988)
  6. Legislature v. Deukmejian669 P.2d 17 (Cal. 1983)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Legislature v. Reinecke, 492 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1972) 31

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list