Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Neil Vs. Biggers

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 06, 1972

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

48 entries 8 linked 40 unlinked
Show
  1. Fay Vs. Noia US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  2. Mapp Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  3. Faulkner Vs. Gibbs US Supreme Court · Nov 07, 1949
  4. Baker Vs. Schofield US Supreme Court · Mar 06, 1917
  5. Towson Vs. Moore US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1899
  6. Stovall Vs. Denno US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1967
  7. Boulden Vs. Holman US Supreme Court · Apr 02, 1969
  8. Blau Vs. Lehman US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1962
  9. U.S. 188 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Neil v. Biggers
    Search
  10. U.S. 188 (1972) Neil v. Biggers
    Search
  11. concerning a station-house identification of respondent by the victim. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed. Biggers v. State
    Search
  12. On certiorari, the judgment of the Tennessee Supreme Court was affirmed by an equally divided Court. Biggers v. Tennessee
    Search
  13. Thereafter, decisions of this Court established not only that res judicata was inapplicable, e.g., Salinger v. Loisel
    Search
  14. application raising grounds rejected in a previous application might be denied without reaching the merits. Salinger v. Loisel
    Search
  15. Etting v. Bank
    Search
  16. Durant v. Essex
    Search
  17. Nor is an affirmance by an equally divided Court entitled to precedential weight. Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price
    Search
  18. process protection against the admission of evidence deriving from suggestive identification procedures. In Stovall v. Denno
    Search
  19. Simmons v. United
    Search
  20. The only case to date in which this Court has found identification procedures to be violative of due process is Foster v. California
    Search
  21. under the circumstances. Id. at 394 U. S. 443 . In the most recent case of Coleman v. Alabama
    Search
  22. the assumption that, in every instance, the admission of evidence of such a confrontation offends due process. Clemons v. United
    Search
  23. Gilbert v. California
    Search
  24. Such a rule would have no place in the present case, since both the confrontation and the trial preceded Stovall v. Denno
    Search
  25. aided, and are confirmed in this view, by the thoughtful opinion of Judge Mansfield in United States ex rel. Radich v. Criminal
    Search
  26. Ct. of City of New York, 459 F.2d 745 (CA2 1972), pet. for cert. pending sub nom. Ross v. Radich
    Search
  27. urged upon us, eight of them involved civil litigation in the federal system. Only one of the cases cited, Boulden v. Holman
    Search
  28. See Clemons v. United
    Search
  29. Phipps v. Follette
    Search
  30. not to reverse findings of fact concurred in by two lower courts unless shown to be clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Blau v. Lehman
    Search
  31. United States v. Commercial
    Search
  32. United States v. Chemical
    Search
  33. Boulden v. Holman
    Search
  34. Comstock v. Group
    Search
  35. U.S. Supreme Court Neil v. Biggers
    Search
  36. Biggers v. State
    Search
  37. Court. Biggers v. Tennessee
    Search
  38. Eaton v. Price
    Search
  39. In Stovall v. Denno
    Search
  40. Foster v. California
    Search
  41. of Coleman v. Alabama
    Search
  42. Clemons v. United
    Search
  43. Radich v. Criminal
    Search
  44. Ross v. Radich
    Search
  45. Phipps v. Follette
    Search
  46. United States v. Dickinson
    Search
  47. Salinger v. Loisel
    Search
  48. Gilbert v. California
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial