Citation network
Humphrey Vs. Cady
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 22, 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
-
U.S. 504 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Humphrey v. CadySearch
-
U.S. 504 (1972) Humphrey v. CadySearch
-
Petitioner's claims are substantial enough to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Baxstrom v. HeroldSearch
-
they are at least substantial enough to warrant an evidentiary hearing, in light of this Court's decisions in Baxstrom v. HeroldSearch
-
U. S. 107 (1966), and Specht v. PattersonSearch
-
to commitment under the Mental Health Act. The Wisconsin court held, anticipating this Court's decision in Specht v. PattersonSearch
-
U. S. 605 (1967), that a hearing was required even for the initial commitment under the Sex Crimes Act. Huebner v. StateSearch
-
to those state remedies still open to the habeas applicant at the time he files his application in federal court. Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
Picard v. ConnorSearch
-
orderly procedure of the state courts, on the ground that, in so doing, he has forfeited his state court remedies. Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
adding a provision for a judicial hearing, as required by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Huebner v. StateSearch
-
Two courts of appeals have implied the contrary, see Matthews v. HardySearch
-
U.S.App.D.C. 39, 420 F.2d 607 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1010 (1970), and United States ex rel. Schuster v. HeroldSearch
-
extend to sex offenders the right to a jury trial at the hearing on the petition for renewal of commitment. Buchanan v. StateSearch
-
factual development at the remand hearing in this case. The jury question was also raised, but not decided, in Hill v. BurkeSearch
-
Cross v. HarrisSearch
-
Millard v. HarrisSearch
-
Stroetz v. BurkeSearch
-
moreover, under Wisconsin law, the State has the burden of proof in such proceedings. Goetsch v. StateSearch
-
There is, of course, no requirement that petitioner file repetitious applications in the state courts. Wilwording v. SwensonSearch
-
Brown v. AllenSearch
-
in which case no exhaustion is required. Wilwording v. SwensonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Humphrey v. CadySearch
-
and Specht v. PattersonSearch
-
the Sex Crimes Act. Huebner v. StateSearch
-
Huebner v. StateSearch
-
Matthews v. HardySearch
-
Schuster v. HeroldSearch
-
Buchanan v. StateSearch
-
Hill v. BurkeSearch
-
Stroetz v. BurkeSearch
-
Goetsch v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial