Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

MclaughlIn Vs. Florida

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 07, 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

67 entries 13 linked 54 unlinked
Show
  1. Air-way Elec. Appliance Corp. Vs. Day US Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1924
  2. Hernandez Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · May 03, 1954
  3. GriffIn Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1956
  4. Morey Vs. Doud US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1957
  5. Central R. Co. Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1962
  6. Douglas Vs. California US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  7. Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. Vs. Bowers US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1959
  8. Bolling Vs. Sharpe US Supreme Court · May 17, 1954
  9. Patsone Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1914
  10. Oyama Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1948
  11. Buck Vs. Bell US Supreme Court · May 02, 1927
  12. Yick Wo Vs. Hopkins US Supreme Court · May 10, 1886
  13. Buchanan Vs. Warley US Supreme Court · Nov 05, 1917
  14. U.S. 184 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court McLaughlin v. Florida
    Search
  15. U.S. 184 (1964) McLaughlin v. Florida
    Search
  16. constitutional contentions were overruled and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Solely on the authority of Pace v. Alabama
    Search
  17. by the section, and each member of the interracial couple is subject to the same penalty. In this situation, Pace v. Alabama
    Search
  18. the Court, in Gulf, C. & S.F. R. Co. v. Ellis
    Search
  19. Id. at 165 U. S. 159 . This approach was confirmed in Atchison, T. & S.F. R. Co. v. Matthews
    Search
  20. See, e.g., 179 U. S. Co. v. Louisiana
    Search
  21. Southern R. Co. v. Greene
    Search
  22. F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia
    Search
  23. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman
    Search
  24. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. v. Harrison
    Search
  25. Skinner v. Oklahoma
    Search
  26. Kotch v. Board
    Search
  27. suffice to characterize the classification as reasonable, rather than arbitrary and invidious. See, e.g., McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  28. Harrison-Allentown, Inc., v. McGinley
    Search
  29. Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New
    Search
  30. Lindsley v. Natural
    Search
  31. Korematsu v. United
    Search
  32. to any constitutionally acceptable legislative purpose, Hirabayashi v. United
    Search
  33. is that racial classifications have been held invalid in a variety of contexts. See, e.g., Virginia Board of Elections v. Hamm
    Search
  34. Anderson v. Martin
    Search
  35. Watson v. City
    Search
  36. Brown v. Board
    Search
  37. S. 193 discrimination forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause. The Florida Supreme Court, relying upon Pace v. Alabama
    Search
  38. Williamson v. Lee
    Search
  39. or even one where the State has done as much as it can as fast as it can, Buck v. Bell
    Search
  40. invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
    Search
  41. Gaines v. Canada
    Search
  42. U. S. 633 , 332 U. S. 646 -647. See Page 379 U. S. 196 also Buchanan v. Warley
    Search
  43. and maintained sexual relations over a period of time, as in the conjugal relation between husband and wife. Braswell v. State
    Search
  44. Lockhart v. State
    Search
  45. Wildman v. State
    Search
  46. Penton v. State
    Search
  47. does not relate only to habitual conduct. It proscribes single and occasional acts of fornication. See Collins v. State
    Search
  48. Parramore v. State
    Search
  49. have been held to deny equal protection even though it applied equally to all to whom it applied. See Strauder v. West
    Search
  50. Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial