Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Davis Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 10, 1974

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

56 entries 4 linked 52 unlinked
Show
  1. Sunal Vs. Large US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1947
  2. United States Vs. Hayman US Supreme Court · Jan 07, 1952
  3. Swift Vs. Tyson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1842
  4. United States Vs. Maze US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1974
  5. Davis v. United
    Search
  6. States - 417 U.S. 333 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Davis v. United
    Search
  7. States, 417 U.S. 333 (1974) Davis v. United
    Search
  8. remand by the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in the light of the intervening decision of this Court in Gutknecht v. United
    Search
  9. While petitioner's petition for certiorari was pending in this Court, the Court of Appeals decided United States v. Fox
    Search
  10. Kaufman v. United
    Search
  11. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While that appeal was pending, this Court announced its decision in Gutknecht v. United
    Search
  12. limitation of scope, but especially for consideration . . . in the light of the intervening decision of Gutknecht v. United
    Search
  13. petition for certiorari was pending in this Court, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided United States v. Fox
    Search
  14. resulting from its decision in United States v. Fox
    Search
  15. is not consonant with this Court's holding in Sanders v. United
    Search
  16. Sanders v. United
    Search
  17. federal prisoners a remedy identical in scope to federal habeas corpus. As the Court pointed out in United States v. Hayman
    Search
  18. rather than the Constitution. It is true, of course, that, in Sunal v. Large
    Search
  19. motion. In Hill v. United
    Search
  20. In this case, the petitioner's contention is that the decision in Gutknecht v. United
    Search
  21. This regulation, which was rescinded shortly after our decision in Gutknecht v. United
    Search
  22. to pursue them on appeal. 332 U. S. 174 , 332 U. S. 178 -179, 332 U. S. 182 . Cf. Kaufman v. United
    Search
  23. it. Petitioner's case turns on whether his conviction for refusing induction has been invalidated by Gutknecht v. United
    Search
  24. the date of a registrant's induction or to deprive him of procedural rights that he had not waived. See United States v. Dobie
    Search
  25. all board authority to order an evasive registrant to report for induction. Thus, in my view, United States v. Fox
    Search
  26. may raise his claim that his induction into the Armed Forces was accelerated contrary to the principles of Gutknecht v. United
    Search
  27. Circuit, unfavorable to him at the time of his conviction and appeal, had subsequently been changed in United States v. Fox
    Search
  28. the new law, or change in law, rule is not applied in this circuit under circumstances such as here presented. Odom v. United
    Search
  29. Certainly neither Sanders v. United
    Search
  30. States, 373 U. S. 1 (1963), nor Kaufman v. United
    Search
  31. Hill v. United
    Search
  32. citations omitted.) The only other case mentioned by the Court which might be relevant to this issue is Sunal v. Large
    Search
  33. this process of selection rests upon any reasoned distinctions which may be derived from either the statute or the cases. v. The
    Search
  34. of appeals on nonconstitutional criminal questions. For example, in January of 1974, the Court decided United States v. Maze
    Search
  35. motion, cited its own decision in Odom v. United
    Search
  36. F.2d 159 (1972). That case involved the question of whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Wade v. United
    Search
  37. which are already overburdened with cases will find that burden increased. As Mr. Justice Jackson noted in Brown v. Allen
    Search
  38. a) (1967), which was rescinded after the Court's decision in Gutknecht v. United
    Search
  39. relief, rather than simply abandoning the statute to study its legislative history. See, e.g., United States v. Sobell
    Search
  40. the federal habeas corpus statute without the logistical problems encountered in the latter remedy. United States v. Hayman
    Search
  41. The Court in Swift v. Tyson
    Search
  42. Sunal v. Large
    Search
  43. DeMarco v. Willingham
    Search
  44. Lothridge v. United
    Search
  45. U.S. Supreme Court Davis v. United
    Search
  46. Gutknecht v. United
    Search
  47. of Gutknecht v. United
    Search
  48. In Hill v. United
    Search
  49. Cf. Kaufman v. United
    Search
  50. See United States v. Dobie
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial