Citation network
Jenkins Vs. Mckeithen
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 09, 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
-
U.S. 411 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Jenkins v. McKeithenSearch
-
U.S. 411 (1969) Jenkins v. McKeithenSearch
-
complaint failed to state a cause of action. A three-judge District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that Hannah v. LarcheSearch
-
procedures violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 395 U. S. 425 -431. (a) Hannah v. LarchSearch
-
U. S. 431 -432. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS concurs in the result for the reasons stated in his dissent in Hannah v. LarcheSearch
-
U. S. 493 -508. P. 395 U. S. 432 . MR. JUSTICE BLACK adhered to MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' dissent in Hannah v. LarcheSearch
-
three-judge court was convened, and that court ultimately granted appellees' motion to dismiss the complaint. Jenkins v. McKeithenSearch
-
the course of action described in the original complaint. After a hearing, the court dismissed the complaint. Jenkins v. McKeithenSearch
-
supra. The court, relying largely on the opinion of the Louisiana Supreme Court in Martone v. MorganSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
dismissed, 393 U. S. 12 (1968) (petition for rehearing pending), held that this Court's decision in Hannah v. LarcheSearch
-
appellees assert that he lacks standing to assert the denial of rights to those who do appear. See, e.g., Tileston v. UllmanSearch
-
reference to the issue of standing. But since the question of standing goes to this Court's jurisdiction, see Flast v. CohenSearch
-
we must decide the issue even though the court below passed over it without comment. Cf. Tileston v. UllmanSearch
-
to dismiss, the material allegations of the complaint are taken as admitted. See, e.g., Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. FoodSearch
-
Conley v. PageSearch
-
under authority of that Act. We think that they are. The concept of standing to sue, as we noted in Flast v. CohenSearch
-
Flast v. CohenSearch
-
of standing focuses on the party seeking relief, rather than on the precise nature of the relief sought. See Flast v. CohenSearch
-
the official action challenged and some legally protected interest of the party challenging that action. See Flast v. CohenSearch
-
which any injury to appellant is merely a collateral consequence of the actions of an investigative body. See Hannah v. LarcheSearch
-
Sinclair v. UnitedSearch
-
be actionable if caused by a private party, and thus should be sufficient to accord appellant standing. See Greene v. McElroySearch
-
the Commission's alleged actions will have a substantial impact on him. See, e.g., Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
to defend any criminal prosecutions as sufficient to deprive him of standing to challenge the Act. Cf. United States v. LosSearch
-
final section of this opinion. Appellees, like the court below, rely heavily on this Court's decision in Hannah v. LarcheSearch
-
and the structure and powers of the Commission here are similar to those of the Civil Rights Commission. See Jenkins v. McKeithenSearch
-
Martone v. MorganSearch
-
U.S. at 363 U. S. 443 . Morgan v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 304 U. S. 1 (1938), Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSearch
-
supra, and Greene v. McElroySearch
-
the other examples cited by the Court in Hannah. It is true, as the Supreme Court of Louisiana has held, Martone v. MorganSearch
-
very much akin to making an official adjudication of criminal culpability. See Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSearch
-
right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental aspect of procedural due process. See, e.g., Willner v. CommitteeSearch
-
Greene Page 395 U. S. 429 v. McElroySearch
-
and cross-examine the witnesses against him, subject only to traditional limitations on those rights. Cf. Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
to present evidence is, of course, essential to the fair hearing required by the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Morgan v. UnitedSearch
-
Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
when the proceeding allegedly results in a finding that a particular individual was guilty of a crime. Cf. Washington v. TexasSearch
-
interpose an independent body of citizens between the accused and the prosecuting attorney and the court. See Stirone v. UnitedSearch
-
and that appellant's remedy was to defend any criminal prosecutions then pending or that might be brought. Jenkins v. McKeithenSearch
-
so ordered. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS concurs in the result for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Hannah v. LarcheSearch
-
The constitutionality of the Act was upheld in Martone v. MorganSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Jenkins v. McKeithenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial