Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Defunis Vs. Odegaard

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 23, 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

68 entries 16 linked 52 unlinked
Show
  1. North Carolina Vs. Rice US Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1971
  2. Aetna Life Ins. Co. Vs. Haworth US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1937
  3. Whitehill Vs. Elkins US Supreme Court · Nov 06, 1967
  4. Gray Vs. Sanders US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  5. Southern Pacific Terminal Co. Vs. Icc US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1911
  6. Roe Vs. Wade US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1973
  7. Hall Vs. Beals US Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1969
  8. Golden Vs. Zwickler US Supreme Court · Mar 04, 1969
  9. Loving Vs. Virginia US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1967
  10. Terrace Vs. Thompson US Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1923
  11. Oyama Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1948
  12. Powell Vs. Mccormack US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1969
  13. Law Students Research Council Vs. Wadmond US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
  14. Sweatt Vs. Painter US Supreme Court · Jun 05, 1950
    Distinguished
  15. Yick Wo Vs. Hopkins US Supreme Court · May 10, 1886
  16. Plessy Vs. Ferguson US Supreme Court · May 18, 1896
  17. U.S. 312 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court DeFunis v. Odegaard
    Search
  18. U.S. 312 (1974) DeFunis v. Odegaard
    Search
  19. Liner v. Jafco
    Search
  20. Powell v. McCormack
    Search
  21. Sibron v. New
    Search
  22. in contexts no less significant, fully to accept representations such as these as parameters for decision. See Gerende v. Election
    Search
  23. Ehlert v. United
    Search
  24. Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond
    Search
  25. United States v. Trans-Missouri
    Search
  26. Walling v. Helmerich
    Search
  27. United States v. Phosphate
    Search
  28. United States v. Munsingwear
    Search
  29. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific
    Search
  30. s qualification normally introduces a capricious and irrelevant factor working an invidious discrimination, Anderson v. Martin
    Search
  31. Harper v. Virginia
    Search
  32. First, we have held that pro rata representation of the races is not required either on juries, see Cassell v. Texas
    Search
  33. U. S. 282 , 339 U. S. 286 -287, or in public schools, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
    Search
  34. Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1 , 402 U. S. 24 . Moreover, in Hughes v. Superior
    Search
  35. the matter, leaving it entirely in the discretion of the school, for then we would have effectively overruled Sweatt v. Painter
    Search
  36. which can claim that it has always treated Japanese and Chinese in a fair and evenhanded manner. See, e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins
    Search
  37. U. S. 633 . This Court has not sustained a racial classification since the wartime cases of Korematsu v. United
    Search
  38. States, 323 U. S. 214 , and Hirabayashi v. United
    Search
  39. That is the point at the heart of all our Page 416 U. S. 343 school desegregation cases, from Brown v. Board
    Search
  40. of Education, 347 U. S. 483 , through Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
    Search
  41. acquire an accordion-like quality. Speech is closely brigaded with action when it triggers a fight, Chaplinsky v. New
    Search
  42. eliminate arbitrary and irrelevant barriers to entry by certain racial groups into the legal profession groups. Griggs v. Duke
    Search
  43. Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 . In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
    Search
  44. set forth in Plessy v. Ferguson
    Search
  45. In Johnson v. Committee
    Search
  46. or certiorari on February 19, 1974. Johnson v. Wilmer
    Search
  47. practice of law to a man who could not conscientiously bear arms. The vote against him was five to four. Konigsberg v. State
    Search
  48. Bar, 353 U. S. 252 , followed, after remand, by Konigsberg v. State
    Search
  49. answer questions concerning Communist Party membership. He, too, was excluded five to four. The petitioner in Schware v. Board
    Search
  50. Party, but because he asserted that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected him from that inquiry. Baird v. State
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial