Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mandel Vs. Bradley

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 16, 1977

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

33 entries 4 linked 29 unlinked
Show
  1. Hicks Vs. Miranda US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1975
    Relied / Followed
  2. Fusari Vs. Steinberg US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1975
  3. Colorado Springs Amusements, Ltd. Vs. Rizzo US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1976
  4. Webster Vs. Fall US Supreme Court · Jan 05, 1925
  5. U.S. 173 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Mandel v. Bradley
    Search
  6. U.S. 173 (1977) Mandel v. Bradley
    Search
  7. the three-judge District Court was not warranted in holding, on the basis of this Court's summary affirmance in Tucker v. Salera
    Search
  8. should have conducted an independent examination of the merits under the constitutional standards set forth in Storer v. Brown
    Search
  9. The court based its holding on our summary affirmance in Tucker v. Salera
    Search
  10. the three-judge court relied, not on the short period for signature gathering (which it thought was valid under Storer v. Brown
    Search
  11. case ad thus required the District Court to conclude that the early filing date is impermissibly burdensome. Hicks v. Miranda
    Search
  12. Footnote omitted.) Fusari v. Steinberg
    Search
  13. Court failed to undertake an independent examination of the merits. The appropriate inquiry was set out in Storer v. Brown
    Search
  14. number of signatures, obtained a place on the ballot, ran, and lost. This case is nonetheless not moot. Storer v. Brown
    Search
  15. In Storer v. Brown
    Search
  16. the statutory scheme. 415 U.S. at 415 U. S. 742 -743. The District Court in this case erred in reading Storer v. Brown
    Search
  17. I join the opinion of the Court, but write to emphasize the Court's treatment of the rule announced in Hicks v. Miranda
    Search
  18. U. S. 332 (1975). In a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Colorado Springs Amusements, Ltd. v. Rizzo
    Search
  19. U.S. at 913. The Court, by not relying on our summary affirmance in Tucker v. Salera
    Search
  20. U.S. 959 (1976), and Auerbach v. Mandel
    Search
  21. concurring. Although there are many indications in the District Court's opinion that it not only considered Tucker v. Salera
    Search
  22. In Jenness v. Fortson
    Search
  23. in Jenness, see id. at 403 U. S. 434 . Thus, that decision is not controlling on this point, KVOS, Inc. v. Associated
    Search
  24. Press, 299 U. S. 269 , 299 U. S. 279 , quoting Webster v. Fall
    Search
  25. For the reasons stated in Edelman v. Jordan
    Search
  26. U. S. 651 , 415 U. S. 670 -671, I do not regard the summary affirmance in Auerbach v. Mandel
    Search
  27. U.S. Supreme Court Mandel v. Bradley
    Search
  28. Tucker v. Salera
    Search
  29. Storer v. Brown
    Search
  30. and Auerbach v. Mandel
    Search
  31. KVOS, Inc. v. Associated
    Search
  32. Auerbach v. Mandel
    Search
  33. Edelman v. Jordan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial