Citation network
Hamm Vs. City of Rock Hill
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 14, 1964
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Hamm v. CitySearch
-
of Rock Hill - 379 U.S. 306 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Hamm v. CitySearch
-
of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (1964) Hamm v. CitySearch
-
and the affirmances thereof in the state courts, abated these actions. 1. The Facts. In No. 2, Hamm v. RockSearch
-
the Court of General Sessions and the Supreme Court of South Carolina, 241 S.C. 420, 128 S.E.2d 907 (1962). Lupper v. ArkansasSearch
-
in verdicts of guilty, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, 236 Ark. 596, 367 S.W.2d 750 (1963), sub nom. Briggs v. StateSearch
-
between state and federal law, Kesler v. DepartmentSearch
-
between Page 379 U. S. 312 federal law and the application of an otherwise valid state enactment, Hill v. FloridaSearch
-
but not finalized, before its passage. 4. Effect of the Act upon the Prosecutions. Last Term, in Bell v. MarylandSearch
-
would abate. The doctrine found its earliest expression in Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in United States v. SchoonerSearch
-
in admiralty were trials de novo, and that prize litigation applied the law of the time of trial, See Yeaton v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Maryland v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Massey v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 291 U. S. 608 (1934), the later cases applied the rule in quite different contexts, see United States v. TynenSearch
-
certiorari sought thereafter, such an extension of the rule was taken for granted in the per curiam decision in Massey v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Civil Rights Act is more than statutory. It is required by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. See Kesler v. DepartmentSearch
-
Hill v. FloridaSearch
-
Lupper et al. v. ArkansasSearch
-
accommodation, are also included in the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, see concurring opinions in Bell v. MarylandSearch
-
others take the position that the Amendment creates no such substantive rights, see dissenting opinion in Bell v. MarylandSearch
-
In Bell v. MarylandSearch
-
is because, as my Brother GOLDBERG and I said in our respective concurring opinions in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
to compel States to abate convictions like these for lawless conduct occurring before the Act was passed. See Bell v. MarylandSearch
-
an intent which Congress never entertained. This was broad, remedial legislation, See Great Northern R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
In United States v. ChambersSearch
-
U. S. 217 , and Massey v. UnitedSearch
-
these trespassers, a conclusion of policy which I had thought was only for legislative bodies to decide. See Ferguson v. SkrupaSearch
-
the early days of this country, this Court did not so lightly intrude upon the criminal laws of a State. In Cohens v. VirginiaSearch
-
See my concurring opinion in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States Page 379 U. S. 323 v. ReisingerSearch
-
U. S. 398 . As was said in United States v. TynenSearch
-
The doctrine has its origins in the English common law, see, e.g., Rex v. CatorSearch
-
King v. DavisSearch
-
Until today the doctrine has always been applied only with respect to legislation of the same sovereignty, e.g., Rex v. CatorSearch
-
to the validity of any purported exercise of the Commerce power in this regard. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
to avoid not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional, but also grave doubts upon that score.' United States v. JinSearch
-
Moore Ice Cream Co. v. RoseSearch
-
the judgments in both of these cases for the reasons given by MR. JUSTICE Black in his dissenting opinion in Bell v. MarylandSearch
-
which expresses a state policy to save the conviction of Lupper. See Mack v. ConnorSearch
-
Ga. 450, 139 S.E.2d 286 (Ga.Sup.Ct.1964). Cf. Bell v. MarylandSearch
-
See Cohens v. VirginiaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hamm v. CitySearch
-
Hamm v. RockSearch
-
Lupper v. ArkansasSearch
-
Briggs v. StateSearch
-
Kesler v. DepartmentSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial