Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mackey Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 05, 1971

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

72 entries 10 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Calderon US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1954
    Relied / Followed
  2. Linkletter Vs. Walker US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1965
  3. Miranda Vs. Arizona US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1966
  4. Jenkins Vs. Delaware US Supreme Court · Jun 02, 1969
  5. Townsend Vs. Sain US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  6. Tehan Vs. Shott US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1966
  7. Stovall Vs. Denno US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1967
    Relied / Followed
  8. Marbury Vs. Madison US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1803
  9. Fay Vs. Noia US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  10. Crowley Vs. Christensen US Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1890
  11. Mackey v. United
    Search
  12. States - 401 U.S. 667 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Mackey v. United
    Search
  13. States, 401 U.S. 667 (1971) Mackey v. United
    Search
  14. but he was convicted in 1964, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. After this Court's 1968 decisions in Marchetti v. United
    Search
  15. States, 390 U. S. 39 , and Grosso v. United
    Search
  16. reliability of the factfinding process was involved in the use of the wagering tax forms at petitioner's trial. Tehan v. Shott
    Search
  17. Johnson v. New
    Search
  18. Williams v. United
    Search
  19. Marchetti v. United
    Search
  20. Grosso v. United
    Search
  21. in evidence at trial. Employing the threefold analysis set forth in our retroactivity decisions, see, e.g., Stovall v. Denno
    Search
  22. F.2d at 509. We granted certiorari. 396 U.S. 954. I In United States v. Kahriger
    Search
  23. U.S. at 345 U. S. 32 -33. Lewis v. United
    Search
  24. today reaffirmed the nonretroactivity of decisions overruling prior constructions of the Fourth Amendment. Williams v. United
    Search
  25. States and Elkanich v. United
    Search
  26. applied to invalidate prior convictions that in all respects conformed to the then controlling law. In Tehan v. Shott
    Search
  27. U. S. 406 (1966), the Court declined to apply the rule of Griffin v. California
    Search
  28. infringed the new rule that was announced in Griffin and was being applied in contemporary trials. Johnson v. New
    Search
  29. This method of prosecution is discussed and approved in Holland v. United
    Search
  30. Friedberg v. United
    Search
  31. Smith v. United
    Search
  32. Desist v. United
    Search
  33. questions presented. Two of the cases, Williams and Elkanich, involve the Court's decision in Chimel v. California
    Search
  34. and seizures incident to a lawful arrest. The other case, Mackey, involves the Court's decisions in Marchetti v. United
    Search
  35. States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968), and Grosso v. United
    Search
  36. doctrine, which came into being somewhat less than six years ago in Linkletter v. Walker
    Search
  37. as the tracks made by a beast of prey in search of its intended victim. See my dissenting opinion in Desist v. United
    Search
  38. States, 394 U. S. 244 , 394 U. S. 256 -257 (1969). See also United States v. United
    Search
  39. be leading us. That is what I had thought underlay the taking of these cases, and their companions, United States v. United
    Search
  40. States Coin & Currency, post, p. 401 U. S. 715 , and Hill v. California
    Search
  41. explanation for the basis of judicial review, an explanation first put forth by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison
    Search
  42. prospectively only. See my dissent in Desist, 394 U.S. at 394 U. S. 259 . Cf. United States v. White
    Search
  43. Part II), and my dissenting opinion in that case, post, p. 401 U. S. 768 . See also United States v. United
    Search
  44. expectations legitimately created by extant law and thereby mitigate the practical force of stare decisis, Linkletter v. Walker
    Search
  45. which ought properly to bear on the Page 401 U. S. 681 judicial resolution of any legal problem. Cf. Moragne v. States
    Search
  46. More immediately relevant here is the fact that, Page 401 U. S. 684 prior to Brown v. Allen
    Search
  47. had a fair opportunity to raise his arguments in the original criminal proceeding, see my dissent in Fay v. Noia
    Search
  48. attacked the constitutionality of the federal, Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371 (1880), or state, Crowley v. Christensen
    Search
  49. Developments in the Law -- Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv.L.Rev. 1040, 1042-1062 (1970). Thus, prior to Brown v. Allen
    Search
  50. display of insensitivity to the principles of federalism which underlie the American legal system. See, e.g., Fay v. Noia
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial