Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Robinson Vs. California

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 25, 1962

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

42 entries 3 linked 39 unlinked
Show
  1. Edwards Vs. California US Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1941
  2. Terminiello Vs. Chicago US Supreme Court · May 16, 1949
    Relied / Followed
  3. Lynch Vs. Overholser US Supreme Court · May 21, 1962
  4. U.S. 660 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Robinson v. California
    Search
  5. U.S. 660 (1962) Robinson v. California
    Search
  6. See Smith v. California
    Search
  7. to regulate the narcotic drugs traffic within its borders is not here in issue. More than forty years ago, in Whipple v. Martinson
    Search
  8. penal sanctions might be imposed for failure to comply with established compulsory treatment procedures. Cf. Jacobson v. Massachusetts
    Search
  9. into the statute. Terminiello v. Chicago
    Search
  10. to be an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Francis v. Resweber
    Search
  11. Linder v. United
    Search
  12. stems from the Bill of Rights of 1688. See State of Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
    Search
  13. In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436 , 136 U. S. 446 ), quartering, the rack and thumbscrew ( see Chambers v. Florida
    Search
  14. See O'Neil v. Vermont
    Search
  15. So may the cruelty of the method of punishment, as, for example, disemboweling a person alive. See Wilkerson v. Utah
    Search
  16. against man's inhumanity to his fellow man. See O'Neil v. Vermont
    Search
  17. Francis v. Resweber
    Search
  18. As to the insane, see Lynch v. Overholser
    Search
  19. this type of conduct, and, for present purposes, we must accept the trial court's construction as binding, Terminiello v. Chicago
    Search
  20. People v. Jaurequi
    Search
  21. Alabama State Federation v. McAdory
    Search
  22. interpretation of the language. Thus, the Court recently reaffirmed the principle in Oil etc., Workers Unions v. Missouri
    Search
  23. Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin
    Search
  24. of the defendant, testifies that the defendant has regularly taken narcotics in the recent past. See, e.g., People v. Williams
    Search
  25. People v. Garcia
    Search
  26. People v. Ackles
    Search
  27. requirements, a conviction for simple use of narcotics may be had only in the county where the use took place, People v. Garcia
    Search
  28. of the Health and Safety Code may be laid in any county where the defendant is found. People v. Ackles
    Search
  29. supra, 147 Cal.App.2d, at 42-43, 304 P.2d at 1033, distinguishing People v. Thompson
    Search
  30. People v. Megladdery
    Search
  31. is to be determined from the evidence and is for the jury, but it need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Megladdery
    Search
  32. supra, 40 Cal.App.2d, at 764, 106 P.2d, at 93. See People v. Bastio
    Search
  33. U.S. Supreme Court Robinson v. California
    Search
  34. Whipple v. Martinson
    Search
  35. Cf. Jacobson v. Massachusetts
    Search
  36. of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Francis v. Resweber
    Search
  37. Chambers v. Florida
    Search
  38. See Wilkerson v. Utah
    Search
  39. Workers Unions v. Missouri
    Search
  40. People v. Williams
    Search
  41. People v. Thompson
    Search
  42. See People v. Bastio
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial