Citation network
Marshall Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 09, 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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Marshall v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 414 U.S. 417 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Marshall v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 414 U.S. 417 (1974) Marshall v. UnitedSearch
-
in apparent conflict on this question. See the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case, sub nom. Marshall v. ParkerSearch
-
F.2d 34 (CA9), and Watson v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and Macias v. UnitedSearch
-
protection as embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The District Judge took note of Watson v. UnitedSearch
-
constitutionally permissible, noting its disagreement with the decisions in Watson, supra, and United States v. HamiltonSearch
-
that the concept of equal protection as embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, see Bolling v. SharpeSearch
-
for the statutory distinctions made, McGinnis v. RoysterSearch
-
U. S. 305 , 384 U. S. 309 (1966). See also James v. StrangeSearch
-
in the holding of this Court in Powell v. TexasSearch
-
impermissible its decision to limit treatment to those with less than two prior felony convictions. Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
Dandridge v. PageSearch
-
with as much soundness, have been drawn instead at one, but this was for legislative, not judicial choice. McGinnis v. RoysterSearch
-
narcotics laws, there was some conjecture that the rationale of that case was limited to its facts. In United States v. HamiltonSearch
-
of one prior narcotics law felony and four prior non-narcotics felony offenses. Subsequently, in United States v. BishopSearch
-
the Equal Protection Clause has been all but emasculated. See Page 414 U. S. 432 San Antonio School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
must once again take issue with the Court's apparently rigid approach to equal protection issues. See, e.g., Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
San Antonio School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
of rationality that we apply to statutes regulating who can sell eyeglasses or who can own pharmacies. See Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
North Dakota State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Snyder'sSearch
-
Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
drawing board to draft a statute which more precisely and more evenhandedly solves the problem. See Railway Express v. NewSearch
-
See Watson v. UnitedSearch
-
Watson v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. MooreSearch
-
had previously been so convicted, but is now convicted of a nonviolent crime, one would be eligible. See United States v. BishopSearch
-
In Watson v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Eighth Amendment problems of convicting addicts for addiction-related offenses came in United States v. MooreSearch
-
See United States v. HarrisonSearch
-
U.S.App.D.C. 229, 231, 485 F.2d 1008, 1010 (1973). This Court has previously dealt with related issues in Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 660 (1962), and Powell v. TexasSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Marshall v. UnitedSearch
-
Marshall v. ParkerSearch
-
(CA9), and Watson v. UnitedSearch
-
of Watson v. UnitedSearch
-
and United States v. HamiltonSearch
-
James v. StrangeSearch
-
Williamson v. LeeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial