Citation network
Kaufman Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 24, 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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Kaufman v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 394 U.S. 217 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Kaufman v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 394 U.S. 217 (1969) Kaufman v. UnitedSearch
-
are the same as those requiring habeas corpus review of constitutional claims of state prisoners, see Townsend v. SainSearch
-
insanity. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, on petitioner's direct appeal, affirmed the conviction. Kaufman v. UnitedSearch
-
Hill v. UnitedSearch
-
the availability of the federal habeas remedy in deciding the question presented in this case. We noted in Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. HaymanSearch
-
Sanders v. UnitedSearch
-
Jordan v. UnitedSearch
-
It is true that, in Sunal v. LargeSearch
-
Hill v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, at 368 U. S. 428 . Later, in Townsend v. SainSearch
-
of the rule announced in the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Thornton v. UnitedSearch
-
prisoners alleging that unconstitutionally obtained evidence was admitted against them at trial. See, e.g., Mancusi v. DeForteSearch
-
Henry v. MississippiSearch
-
by state prisoners. Support for this proposition is drawn from the fact that considerations which this Court, in Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
of a mechanism for relief. This is no less true for federal prisoners than it is for state prisoners. In Townsend v. SainSearch
-
situations of state and federal prisoners which should make allegations of the other circumstances listed in Townsend v. SainSearch
-
for the benefits of finality runs contrary to the most basic precepts of our system of post-conviction relief. In Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
The same view was expressed in Sanders v. UnitedSearch
-
not merely the citizen on trial, to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. As we said in Miller v. UnitedSearch
-
difference in the way federal courts should treat post-conviction applications by state and federal prisoners. Brown v. AllenSearch
-
relief often have had their constitutional claims passed on by federal courts at trial or on appeal, so the Brown v. AllenSearch
-
court based its rulings on findings of fact made after a hearing not 'full and fair' within the meaning of Townsend v. SainSearch
-
Warren v. UnitedSearch
-
Springer v. UnitedSearch
-
Peters v. UnitedSearch
-
Gendron v. UnitedSearch
-
Armstead v. UnitedSearch
-
Eisner v. UnitedSearch
-
De Welles v. UnitedSearch
-
Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
the question, rather, is whether the case is one in which refusal to exercise that power would be appropriate. See Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
Gaitan v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial