Citation network
Benton Vs. Maryland
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 1969
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
-
U.S. 784 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
U.S. 784 (1969) Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
The concurrent sentence doctrine enunciated in Hirabayashi v. UnitedSearch
-
ideal in our constitutional heritage, is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Palko v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Green v. UnitedSearch
-
of appeal was filed in the Maryland Court of Appeals, that court handed down its decision in the case of Schowgurow v. StateSearch
-
Does the 'concurrent sentence doctrine,' enunciated in Hirabayashi v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 105 , and subsequent cases, have continuing validity in light of such decisions as Ginsberg v. NewSearch
-
York, 390 U. S. 629 , 390 U. S. 633 , n. 2, Peyton v. RoweSearch
-
U. S. 54 , Carafass v. LaValleeSearch
-
U. S. 234 , 391 U. S. 237 -238, and Sibron v. NewSearch
-
for it is well settled that federal courts may act only in the context of a justiciable case or controversy. Muskrat v. UnitedSearch
-
Flast v. CohenSearch
-
in this country quite early, although its earliest manifestations occurred in slightly different contexts. In Locke v. UnitedSearch
-
the Court in Claassen v. UnitedSearch
-
approach to cases where concurrent sentences, rather than a single general sentence, have been imposed is Hirabayashi v. UnitedSearch
-
if any one count was good. Barenblatt v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. GaineySearch
-
Roviaro v. UnitedSearch
-
rule entirely and decided an issue that affected only one count, even though there were concurrent sentences. Putnam v. UnitedSearch
-
and related ones, without finding any satisfactory explanation for the concurrent sentence doctrine. See United States v. HinesSearch
-
Page 395 U. S. 790 it seems clear to us that it cannot be taken to state a jurisdictional rule. See Yates v. UnitedSearch
-
concurrent sentences does not remove the elements necessary to create a justiciable case or controversy. In Sibron v. NewSearch
-
five years, petitioner would then clearly have a right to have his larceny conviction reviewed. As we said in Sibron v. NewSearch
-
specified in our original writ of certiorari. III In 1937, this Court decided the landmark case of Palko v. ConnecticutSearch
-
subsequent appeals from state courts, the Court continued to apply this lesser Palko standard. See, e.g., Brock v. NorthSearch
-
Washington v. TexasSearch
-
it should apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Insofar as it is inconsistent with this holding, Palko v. ConnecticutSearch
-
basic constitutional rights which this Court's recent decisions have rejected. It was cut of the same cloth as Betts v. BradySearch
-
Id. at 316 U. S. 462 . It Page 395 U. S. 795 relied upon Twining v. NewSearch
-
self-incrimination was not an element of Fourteenth Amendment due process. Betts was overruled by Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
See Bartkus v. IllinoisSearch
-
As this Court put it in Green v. UnitedSearch
-
his burglary conviction, he is forced to suffer retrial on the larceny count as well. As this Court held in Green v. UnitedSearch
-
s option, not absolutely void. In any case, this argument was answered here over 70 years ago in United States v. BallSearch
-
s objections, because of a defect in the indictment. This it cannot do. Petitioner's larceny conviction cannot stand. v. PetitionerSearch
-
habeas corpus in the lower federal courts. A federal district court ordered the State to resentence petitioner, Benton v. CopingerSearch
-
Grant v. AstleSearch
-
Peake v. OldhamSearch
-
Rex v. BenfieldSearch
-
Street v. NewSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial