Citation network
Dyke Vs. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 20, 1968
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
-
Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
Implement Mfg. Co., Inc. - 391 U.S. 216 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
Implement Mfg. Co., Inc., 391 U.S. 216 (1968) Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
that they would find an instrumentality of a crime or evidence pertaining to a crime. The applicability of Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment was violated when their request for trial by jury was denied. We have held today, in Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
Article III and the Sixth Amendment that jury trials be available to criminal defendants. We have also held, in Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
and those that cannot be. From Cheff v. SchnackenbergSearch
-
place until petitioners were in custody inside the courthouse and the car was parked on the street outside. Preston v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 376 U. S. 368 . The search in question here is not saved by Cooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
may be searched without a warrant upon facts not justifying a warrantless search of a residence or office. Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
proper constitutional provisions when the lower courts consider the relevant provisions. E.g., Braniff Airways, Inc. v. NebraskaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, dissenting. The Court holds in this case, as it said in dictum in Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
should be used to deprive a criminal defendant of a jury trial. See my dissenting opinion in Green v. UnitedSearch
-
Court gives to it today, I do not desire to condemn the right to trial by jury to such an uncertain fate. See Cheff v. SchnackenbergSearch
-
U. S. 373 , 384 U. S. 384 393 (dissenting opinion). My Brother HARLAN's dissent in Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
I would not hold that this offense falls in that category. See my dissenting opinion in United States v. BarnettSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
of Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
From Cheff v. SchnackenbergSearch
-
Preston v. UnitedSearch
-
Cooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
E.g., Braniff Airways, Inc. v. NebraskaSearch
-
Green v. UnitedSearch
-
See Cheff v. SchnackenbergSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial