Citation network
Wilson Vs. Schnettler
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 27, 1961
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 381 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Wilson v. SchnettlerSearch
-
U.S. 381 (1961) Wilson v. SchnettlerSearch
-
litigated unsuccessfully in the state court, and that is not permissible. Pp. 365 U. S. 385 -386. (d) Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
of petitioner's person and the seizure of the found narcotics were validly made incidentally to a lawful arrest. Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
Giordenello v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Draper v. PageSearch
-
certainly to the exclusion of the Federal District Court -- until its duty has been fully performed, Harkrader v. WadleySearch
-
Douglas v. CitySearch
-
averments of his complaint were sufficient to entitle him to the relief prayed under the principles announced in Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Reina v. UnitedSearch
-
People v. TillmanSearch
-
or the rule formulated in Harkrader v. WadleySearch
-
U. S. 148 , 172 U. S. 164 . It seems to me that Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
the judgment. The petitioner has failed to state a case warranting equitable relief under the standards of Stefanelli v. MinardSearch
-
U. S. 117 , 342 U. S. 122 , and Douglas v. CitySearch
-
construed, entitle petitioner to a hearing, and, if they are supported by evidence, to the relief he seeks. In Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
a federal judicial system, complete unto itself. Some federal laws are enforceable in state tribunals. See e.g., Testa v. KattSearch
-
where, for example, a state procedure violates the Federal Constitution. Yet, under the decision of this Court in Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
What Page 365 U. S. 393 we said about the relief sought in Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
federal officers under federal standards of behavior. If the considerations which led to decisions like Stefanelli v. MinardSearch
-
U. S. 117 , were not controlling in Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, they should not be controlling in this case. The rationale of Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
victim would be entitled to an order regarding the use of the evidence in federal courts. See Go-Bart Importing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
The role of the courts has been active. In Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
have a distinct mission to perform in actively protecting the right of privacy of the individual. We said in Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
a search, otherwise legal, may be illegal for failure to apply to a magistrate for a warrant was expressed in Trupiano v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 334 U. S. 699 , and McDonald v. UnitedSearch
-
Trupiano v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, at 334 U. S. 709 . We have occasionally retreated, as United States v. RabinowitzSearch
-
and Abel v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 362 U. S. 217 , show. But we returned to the basic philosophy of the Fourth Amendment in Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
as it was in this case, if the allegations are supported by evidence. When we forsake Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
there, the exclusionary rule of Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, does not apply. See Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
incorporation of a federal standard to guide their determinations under state law. Cf. Standard Oil Co. of Calif. v. JohnsonSearch
-
People v. GrodSearch
-
from decisions of this Court that speak of a judicial discretion to deny such relief. See, e.g., Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. HaworthSearch
-
Brillhart v. ExcessSearch
-
Public Service Comm'n v. WycoffSearch
-
Harkrader v. WadleySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial