Citation network
Linkletter Vs. Walker
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 07, 1965
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
- Distinguished
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 618 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Linkletter v. WalkerSearch
-
U.S. 618 (1965) Linkletter v. WalkerSearch
-
of burglary by a Louisiana court and his conviction was affirmed by the highest state court. Thereafter, in Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
and of public policy in the light of the nature of the statute and its previous application. Chicot Drainage Dist. v. BaxterSearch
-
and seizure prescription of the Fourth Amendment. P. 381 U. S. 629 . (d) The primary purpose of Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 639 . 323 F.2d 11, affirmed. MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. In Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
was required of the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In so doing, we overruled Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
England v. LouisianaSearch
-
State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411 (1964). See also Great Northern Ry. Co. v. SunburstSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
This Court followed that rule in Norton v. ShelbySearch
-
its discoverer. Gray, Nature and Sources of the Law 222 (1st ed. 1909). In the case of the overruled decision, Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
The Blackstonian view ruled English jurisprudence and cast its shadow over our own as evidenced by Norton v. ShelbySearch
-
and void, those previously granted were immunized by a prospective application of the rule of the case. Bingham v. MillerSearch
-
Ohio 445 (1848). And as early as 1863, this Court drew on the same concept in Gelpcke v. CitySearch
-
At 68 U. S. 206 . The theory was, as Mr. Justice Holmes stated in Kuhn v. FairmontSearch
-
And in 1932, Mr. Justice Cardozo in Great Northern Ry. Co. v. SunburstSearch
-
At 287 U. S. 364 . Eight years later, Chief Justice Hughes, in Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. BaxterSearch
-
retroaction which differs somewhat from the type discussed above is that which was established in United States v. SchoonerSearch
-
This same approach was subsequently applied in instances where a statutory change intervened, Carpenter v. WabashSearch
-
where a constitutional amendment was adopted, United States v. ChambersSearch
-
and where judicial decision altered or overruled earlier case law, Vandenbark v. Owens-IllinoisSearch
-
Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. BaxterSearch
-
language used not only in Schooner Peggy, supra, and Chicot County, supra, but also in such cases as State v. JonesSearch
-
N.M. 623, 107 P.2d 324 (1940), and James v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 213 (1961). In the latter case, this Court laid down a prospective principle in overruling Commissioner v. WilcoxSearch
-
II Since Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Fourth Amendment Page 381 U. S. 630 is not admissible at trial in a federal court. In 1949, in Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
U. S. 670 (concurring opinion of DOUGLAS, J.), was indicated by a decision announced on the same day, Lustig v. UnitedSearch
-
and admitted in evidence in prosecutions in the federal courts. In 1951, Wolf was strengthened by Stefanelli v. MinardSearch
-
illegally seized by state officers. In 1952, however, the Court could not tolerate the procedure involved in Rochin v. PeopleSearch
-
process grounds under the Fourteenth Amendment because the action was shocking to the conscience. In 1954 came Irvine v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 633 had seized on an illegal federal warrant, or testifying with regard to it in a state prosecution. Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
doctrine, Lustig v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, led to its rejection in the leading case of Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 364 U. S. 206 . The factual situation being the converse of Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
because other remedies have completely failed to secure compliance with the constitutional provisions. . . .' People v. CahanSearch
-
of other remedies has, moreover, been recognized Page 381 U. S. 634 by this Court since Wolf. See Irvine v. CaliforniaSearch
-
At 367 U. S. 652 -653. In discussing People v. DeforeSearch
-
Likewise, time has set its face against what Wolf called the 'weighty testimony' of People v. DeforeSearch
-
of People v. DeforeSearch
-
subsequent to Mapp had completely closed the laxity in the federal exclusionary rule complained of in People v. DeforeSearch
-
that was causing conflict between federal and state courts, as was permitted in Wilson v. SchnettlerSearch
-
exclusionary rule to be a deterrent safeguard necessary to the enforcement of the Amendment, Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
on the necessity for an effective deterrent to illegal police Page 381 U. S. 637 action. See, e.g., Rea v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial