Blackmoon v. Charles Mix County

4 Citing cases

  1. Thomas v. Bryant

    366 F. Supp. 3d 786 (S.D. Miss. 2019)   Cited 4 times

    Dotson , 514 F.Supp. at 401.SeeBlackmoon v. Charles Mix Cty. , 386 F.Supp.2d 1108, 1115 (D.S.D. 2005). 2. Laches

  2. Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Lyman Cnty.

    625 F. Supp. 3d 891 (D.S.D. 2022)

    Plaintiffs did not inexcusably delay in raising their concerns about vote dilution until October of 2021 when the County received input on its new redistricting plan. See Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 772 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Because of the ongoing nature of [voter dilution in violation of the VRA], plaintiffs' present [voter dilution] claim ought not be barred by laches"); Blackmoon v. Charles Mix County, 386 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1114-15 (D.S.D. 2005) (rejecting a laches defense to a complaint stating that at-large commissioner districts that had been in place for 37 years violated the VRA when the complaint was brought after new census results were published requiring redistricting). at 8;

  3. Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Lyman Cnty.

    3:22-CV-03008-RAL (D.S.D. Aug. 11, 2022)

    Plaintiffs did not inexcusably delay in raising their concerns about vote dilution until October 2021 when the County sought community input on its new redistricting plan. See Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 772 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Because of the ongoing nature of [voter dilution in violation of the VRA], plaintiffs' present [voter dilution] claim ought not be barred by laches”); Blackmoon v. Charles Mix County, 386 F.Supp.2d 1108, 1114-15 (D.S.D. 2005) (rejecting a laches defense to a complaint stating that at-large commissioner districts that had been in place for 37 years violated the VRA when the complaint was brought after new census results were published requiring redistricting).

  4. Brown v. Ky. Legislative Research Comm'n

    966 F. Supp. 2d 709 (E.D. Ky. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    In Blackmoon v. Charles Mix Cnty., another three-judge district court considered this issue in the context of the continued use of mal apportioned legislative electoral districts, and found that though the statute of limitations corresponding to Section 1983 actions filed in South Dakota applied, the violation renews itself each time an election is held. 386 F.Supp.2d 1108, 1115 (D.S.D.2005). The Defendants have presented no authority nor has the court uncovered any case in which a district court has dismissed a claim like this one on the grounds that it was time barred by the statute of limitations.