The case is Hunt v Cromartie. 

After the Shaw v Reno 3-judge court approved the 1997 NC congressional
plan, Cromartie and others reactivated a dormant suit claiming that the
1997 plan was unconstitutional. Pretty blatant judge shopping, since
Cromartie and one other plaintiff were also plaintiffs in the Shaw case.
Issue 1 by the State of NC is collateral estoppel.

The new 3-judge court (one judge the same as in the Shaw case) granted
summary judgment for the plaintiffs after finding that the 1997 plan was
drafted for the predominant purpose of dividing resident by race. Issue
2 by the State is that summary judgment was "not appropriate" (to use a
Clintonism) because there was conflicting evidence on the material
facts.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Public replies: ELECTION-LAW@chicagokent.Kentlaw.EDU
Message no.: ELECTION-LAW 981001-8
Archives: http://mlm.kentlaw.edu/election-law . For e-mail access,
contact netadmin@chicagokent.Kentlaw.EDU .
Please do not cite to this posting without first obtaining the
permission of the sender.
To unsubscribe or digest: listproc@chicagokent.Kentlaw.EDU
Technical questions: netadmin@chicagokent.Kentlaw.EDU
Other inquires about the list: OWNER-ELECTION-LAW@chicagokent.Kentlaw.EDU

-------------------------------------------------------------------