Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Daniel Vs. Louisiana

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 27, 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

36 entries 8 linked 28 unlinked
Show
  1. Destefano Vs. Woods US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1968
    Relied / Followed
  2. Fuller Vs. Alaska US Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1968
  3. Jenkins Vs. Delaware US Supreme Court · Jun 02, 1969
  4. Michigan Vs. Payne US Supreme Court · May 21, 1973
  5. Michigan Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1974
    Relied / Followed
  6. Linkletter Vs. Walker US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1965
  7. Whisman Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1966
    Relied / Followed
  8. Stovall Vs. Denno US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1967
  9. U.S. 31 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Daniel v. Louisiana
    Search
  10. U.S. 31 (1975) Daniel v. Louisiana
    Search
  11. U.S. 31 ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus The decision in Taylor v. Louisiana
    Search
  12. as a matter of federal law, to convictions obtained by juries empaneled prior to the date of that decision. DeStefano v. Woods
    Search
  13. was denied, and this denial was affirmed on appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court. 297 So.2d 417 (1974). In Taylor v. Louisiana
    Search
  14. a fair cross section Page 420 U. S. 32 of the community. The question is whether our decision in Taylor v. Louisiana
    Search
  15. law, to convictions obtained by juries empaneled prior to the date of that decision. As we stated in Taylor v. Louisiana
    Search
  16. the question of the retroactive application of Taylor is clearly controlled by our decision in DeStefano v. Woods
    Search
  17. U. S. 631 (1968), where we held Duncan v. Louisiana
    Search
  18. U. S. 145 (1968), to be applicable only prospectively. The three relevant factors, as identified in Stovall v. Denno
    Search
  19. U. S. 33 of law enforcement officials and state legislatures on prior decisions of this Court, such as Hoyt v. Florida
    Search
  20. Tehan v. United
    Search
  21. Desist v. United
    Search
  22. Mackey v. United
    Search
  23. Adams v. Illinois
    Search
  24. U. S. 433 , 417 U. S. 464 . MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. The decision in Taylor v. Louisiana
    Search
  25. standards of procedural due process. I have recorded my dissents in other like situations, e.g., Stovall v. Denno
    Search
  26. Johnson v. New
    Search
  27. When Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  28. He would remand the cases for a new trial, it being clear from the records that the principles announced in Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  29. these petitioners, all of these cases having come here on direct review and being of the same vintage as Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  30. U.S. Supreme Court Daniel v. Louisiana
    Search
  31. Taylor v. Louisiana
    Search
  32. In Taylor v. Louisiana
    Search
  33. Duncan v. Louisiana
    Search
  34. Hoyt v. Florida
    Search
  35. Tehan v. United
    Search
  36. Miranda v. Arizona
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial