Albaugh v. Tawes

6 Citing cases

  1. Page v. Raimondo

    1:22-cv-01416 (ACR) (D.D.C. Jul. 23, 2024)

    In 1964, an unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland-apparently seeking to mix up the voter pool-sought a declaratory judgment that D.C. residents have a constitutional right to vote in U.S. Senate elections in Maryland. Albaugh v. Tawes, 233 F.Supp. 576, 576 (D. Md.) (three-judge panel) (per curiam), aff'd, 379 U.S. 27 (1964) (per curiam). A three-judge district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim, Albaugh, 233 F.Supp. at 578, and the Supreme Court summarily affirmed,Albaugh,

  2. Adams v. Clinton

    90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that the District of Columbia is not a state and thus not entitled to representation in Congress under Article I of the Constitution

    In Albaugh v. Tawes, a three-judge district court considered a suit seeking a declaratory judgment "that the District of Columbia is a part of the State of Maryland for purposes of United States Senator elections." 233 F.Supp. 576, 576 (D.Md. 1964). Plaintiff's arguments were "based upon the fact that . . . during the period between 1790 and the `Organic Act of 1801,' residents of the territory ceded by the State of Maryland may have been allowed to vote as residents" of that state.

  3. Adams v. Clinton

    Civ. Nos. 98-1665 (LFO, MBG, CKK), 98-2187 (LFO, MBG, CKK) (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2000)

    In Albaugh v. Tawes, a three-judge district court considered a suit seeking a declaratory judgment "that the District of Columbia is a part of the State of Maryland for purposes of United States Senator elections." 233 F. Supp. 576, 576 (D.Md. 1964). Plaintiff's arguments were "based upon the fact that . . . during the period between 1790 and the `Organic Act of 1801,' residents of the territory ceded by the State of Maryland may have been allowed to vote as residents" of that state.

  4. Albaugh v. Tawes

    379 U.S. 27 (1964)   Cited 2 times

    Decided November 9, 1964.233 F. Supp. 576, affirmed. PER CURIAM.

  5. Howard v. State Administrative Board of Election Laws

    976 F. Supp. 350 (D. Md. 1996)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that plaintiff's argument, that as "a resident of the District of Columbia . . . he has the right to participate in congressional elections in the State of Maryland," is "foreclosed by" Albaugh

    MOTZ, Chief Judge. Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, has brought this action seeking a declaration that he has the right to participate in congressional elections in the State of Maryland. Plaintiffs primary arguments are foreclosed by a 1964 decision of this court that was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. See Albaugh v. Tawes, 233 F. Supp. 576 (D.Md.), affd., 379 U.S. 27, 85 S.Ct. 194, 13 L.Ed.2d 173 (1964). Plaintiff makes one argument that was not addressed in Albaugh.

  6. Suglove v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n

    1979 OK 168 (Okla. 1980)   Cited 14 times
    Stating that, “absent contrary indications,” individuals “moving to another state” are “routinely taxed as part-year residents”

    Pemberton v. Colonna, 189 F. Supp. 430, 431-432 [D.C.Pa. 1960], affd. 290 F.2d 220, 221 [3rd Cir. 1961].Albaugh v. Tawes, 233 F. Supp. 576 [D.C.Md. 1964], affd. 379 U.S. 27, 85 S.Ct. 194, 13 L.Ed.2d 173 [1964].Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 12 S.Ct. 375, 36 L.Ed. 103 [1891].