Citation network
Hicks Vs. Miranda
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1975
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. 332 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Hicks v. MirandaSearch
-
U.S. 332 (1975) Hicks v. MirandaSearch
-
ordered return to appellees of all seized copies of the film, and rejected appellants' claim that Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
U. S. 37 , and Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
of the appeal in Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
reaffirmed its Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Court erred in reaching the merits of the case despite appellants' insistence that it be dismissed under Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
and Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal court, the principles of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
absent satisfactory proof of those extraordinary circumstances warranting one of the exceptions to the rule of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
U. S. 353 . MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. This case poses issues under Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 37 (1971), Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
briefs and affidavits. The Attorney General of California also appeared and urged the District Court to follow People v. EnskatSearch
-
Cal.App.3d 900, 109 Cal.Rptr. 433 (1973) (hearing denied Oct. 24, 1973), which, after Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
which had been seized, as well as to refrain from making any additional seizures. Appellants' claim that Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
U. S. 37 (1971), and Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
faith and harassment on the part of the authorities, all of which relieved the court from the strictures of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
order which had been issued in the criminal case pending in the Municipal Court, the per curiam reversal citing Aday v. SuperiorSearch
-
requisite prompt adversary determination of obscenity under Heller v. NewSearch
-
On September 30, the three-judge court denied appellants' motions, reaffirmed its June 4 Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
the question arises whether Miller II removed the necessity for a three-judge court under the rule of Bailey v. PattersonSearch
-
Court should have followed the Second Circuit's advice, first, in Port Authority Bondholders Protective Committee v. PortSearch
-
and, later, in Doe v. HodgsonSearch
-
F.2d 537, 539, cert. denied sub nom. Doe v. BrennanSearch
-
ed. and Supp. 1975), insofar as they might be applied, contrary to Heller v. NewSearch
-
U. S. was not correctly decided. Page 422 U. S. 347 B Appellees contend (1) that, under Gonzalez v. AutomaticSearch
-
Employees Credit Union, 419 U. S. 90 (1974), and MTM, Inc. v. BaxleySearch
-
Even if appellees' premise is correct, but see Philbrook v. GlodgettSearch
-
error in reaching the merits of this case despite the appellants' insistence that it be dismissed under Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
in the state proceedings and see to it that their federal claims were presented there, the requirements of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
no criminal prosecution was pending against appellees on the date the federal complaint was filed. The rule in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
of service of the complaint, appellees were charged along with their employees in Municipal Court. Neither Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
U. S. 452 (1974), nor any other case in this Court has held that, for Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
to any proceedings whatsoever before the three-judge court. Unless we are to trivialize the principles of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
proof of those extraordinary circumstances calling into play one of the limited exceptions to the rule of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Court was not entitled to infer official bad faith merely because it -- the District Court -- disagreed with People v. EnskatSearch
-
harassment would be present in every case in which a state statute is ruled unconstitutional, and the rule of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
in those seizures sought federal relief, which was denied, the seizures being upheld despite challenge under Heller v. NewSearch
-
Spielman Motor Co. v. DodgeSearch
-
In Aday v. SuperiorSearch
-
Later decisions of this Court, e.g., A Quantity of Books v. KansasSearch
-
Heller v. NewSearch
-
to determine obscenity is held, which hearing, in its view would remove any constitutional objection under Heller v. NewSearch
-
At least some Justices have thought so. Perez v. LedesmaSearch
-
U. S. 117 n. 9 (1971) (BRENNAN, J., joined by WHITE and MARSHALL, JJ., concurring and dissenting). Also, Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hicks v. MirandaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial