Summary
In Badgley v. Hare, 385 U.S. 114, 87 S.Ct. 338, 17 L.Ed.2d 207 (1966) (discussed in Sincock v. Gately at 262 F. Supp. 832-833) the Court dismissed, "for want of a substantial federal question" a Michigan case (Badgley v. Secretary of State, 377 Mich. 396, 140 N.W.2d 436) which was attacked as permitting gerrymandering.
Summary of this case from Skolnick v. Mayor and City Council of ChicagoOpinion
No. 505.
Decided November 21, 1966.
376 Mich. 410, 137 N.W.2d 495, 138 N.W.2d 16; 377 Mich. 396, 140 N.W.2d 436, appeal dismissed.
William T. Gossett for appellants.
Frank J. Kelly, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Curtis G. Beck, Assistant Attorney General, for Hare; Theodore Sachs for Scholle et al., appellees.
The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.