Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Cleary Vs. Bolger

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 14, 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

73 entries 6 linked 67 unlinked
Show
  1. Stefanelli Vs. Minard US Supreme Court · Dec 03, 1951
  2. Watson Vs. Buck US Supreme Court · May 26, 1941
  3. Wolf Vs. Colorado US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1949
  4. Gallegos Vs. Nebraska US Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1951
  5. United States Vs. Butler US Supreme Court · Jan 06, 1936
  6. Pugach Vs. Dollinger US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1961
  7. U.S. 392 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Cleary v. Bolger
    Search
  8. U.S. 392 (1963) Cleary v. Bolger
    Search
  9. the injunction against the state officer was improvidently granted. Stefanelli v. Minard
    Search
  10. U. S. 117 , followed. Rea v. United
    Search
  11. been manifested in numerous decisions of this Court involving a State's enforcement of its criminal law. E.g., Pugach v. Dollinger
    Search
  12. Douglas v. City
    Search
  13. Beal v. Missouri
    Search
  14. recognized the validity of these considerations, but thought that injunctive relief was nonetheless required by Rea v. United
    Search
  15. the correctness of the lower courts' broad reading of the Rea Page 371 U. S. 399 case, cf. Wilson v. Schnettler
    Search
  16. Nor is the vitality of the principles on which the latter case rested sapped by this Court's decision in Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  17. U. S. 643 , overruling Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  18. U. S. 25 , which had refused to extend to the States the exclusionary rule of Weeks v. United
    Search
  19. constitutional rights in the state proceedings. To the extent that such rights have been violated, cf., e.g., Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  20. need not decide whether an adverse state determination upon such claims would be reversible here. Cf., e.g., Gallegos v. Nebraska
    Search
  21. See De Veau v. Braisted
    Search
  22. See McNabb v. United
    Search
  23. jurisdiction to enjoin petitioner incidental to its supervisory power over federal law enforcement agencies, cf. Rea v. United
    Search
  24. stated a cause of action as to him or whether federal jurisdiction existed or was adequately invoked. See Stefanelli v. Minard
    Search
  25. to think that the propriety of the District Court's injunction was not affected by this Court's decision in Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  26. s opinion, because I do not find it necessary, in the present circumstances, to pass upon the question whether Rea v. United
    Search
  27. obviated by the commendably broad reading which the New York Court of Appeals has given this Court's decision in Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  28. Because I strongly adhere to the principle, stated with clarity in Stefanelli v. Minard
    Search
  29. a holding arrived at on facts similar to those involved here. People v. Rodriguez
    Search
  30. the evidence in question here, a possibility which, for me, because of my firm belief in the principles of Stefanelli v. Minard
    Search
  31. There is a strong interest, which many decisions of this Court reflect, e.g., McNabb v. United
    Search
  32. Mallory v. United
    Search
  33. People v. Loria
    Search
  34. People v. O'Neill
    Search
  35. People v. Rodriguez
    Search
  36. Compare Bloodgood v. Lynch
    Search
  37. N.Y. 308, 56 N.E.2d 718 (1944), with Sackler v. Sackler
    Search
  38. Compare Rogers v. United
    Search
  39. States, 97 F.2d 691 (C.A.1st Cir. 1938), United States v. Butler
    Search
  40. F.2d 897 (C.A.10th Cir. 1946), and United States v. Physic
    Search
  41. F.2d 338 (C.A.2d Cir. 1949), with United States v. One
    Search
  42. Nothing in Gallegos v. Nebraska
    Search
  43. in violation of the Fourth Amendment. That question can now be raised in the state prosecution as a result of Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  44. and seizure violated both the Fourth Amendment and Rule 41(a). 189 F.Supp. 237. The District Court relied on Rea v. United
    Search
  45. F.Supp. at 256. Only Cleary appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the authority of Rea v. United
    Search
  46. to paraphrase an earlier opinion in a related area. See Elkins v. Page
    Search
  47. criminal prosecution to protect a defendant's federal rights against state infringement, as was the case in Pugach v. Dollinger
    Search
  48. U. S. 458 , and Stefanelli v. Minard
    Search
  49. of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. But, having made this concession -- compelled, I should think, by Rea v. United
    Search
  50. Tucker v. Carpenter
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial