Citation network
Castaneda Vs. Partida
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 23, 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
-
U.S. 482 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Castaneda v. PartidaSearch
-
U.S. 482 (1977) Castaneda v. PartidaSearch
-
This Court on prior occasions has considered the workings of the Texas system of grand jury selection. See Hernandez v. TexasSearch
-
Hill v. TexasSearch
-
Smith v. TexasSearch
-
denied the motion for a new trial. On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction. Partida v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. at 347 U. S. 477 . See Page 430 U. S. 493 Alexander v. LouisianaSearch
-
Carter v. JurySearch
-
Comm'n, 396 U. S. 320 , 396 U. S. 330 (1970). See also Peters v. KiffSearch
-
of the group constitutes a constitutional violation as well, if it results from purposeful discrimination. See Turner v. FoucheSearch
-
fact that an official act is not unconstitutional solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact. Washington v. DavisSearch
-
Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
Id. at 429 U. S. 266 . In Washington v. DavisSearch
-
recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment under the laws, as written or as applied. Hernandez v. TexasSearch
-
called to serve as grand jurors, over a significant period of time. Id. at 347 U. S. 480 . See Norris v. AlabamaSearch
-
or is not racially neutral supports the presumption of discrimination raised by the statistical showing. Washington v. DavisSearch
-
Alexander v. LouisianaSearch
-
case, it is no longer open to dispute that Mexican-Americans are a clearly identifiable class. See, e.g., Hernandez v. TexasSearch
-
supra. Cf. White v. RegesterSearch
-
from the 1970 census illustrate disadvantages to which the group has been subject. Additionally, as in Alexander v. LouisianaSearch
-
easily identifiable as race was from the questionnaires in Alexander or the notations and card colors in Whitus v. GeorgiaSearch
-
supra, and in Avery v. GeorgiaSearch
-
is greater than that found significant in Turner v. FoucheSearch
-
Court as adequate for a prima facie case have all been within the range presented here. For example, in Whitus v. GeorgiaSearch
-
jury venire. The disparity was held to be sufficient to make out a prima facie case of discrimination. See Sims v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Jones v. GeorgiaSearch
-
The facial constitutionality of the key-man system, of course, has been accepted by this Court. See, e.g., Carter v. JurySearch
-
See Hernandez v. TexasSearch
-
and the instructions given to them. The commissioners themselves were not called to testify. A case such as Swan v. AlabamaSearch
-
we are simply saying that the State did not do so in this case. See Turner v. FoucheSearch
-
might have. Since the Texas courts considered the claim on its merits, however, we are free to do so here. See Coleman v. AlabamaSearch
-
Francis v. HendersonSearch
-
typically resulted in a progressive reduction of the number of Mexican-Americans involved at each stage. See Alexander v. LouisianaSearch
-
to make out a prima facie case in the absence of other evidence, since that case is not before us. Cf. Thiel v. SouthernSearch
-
in this Court holding unconstitutional discriminatory selection procedures in the grand jury context include Alexander v. LouisianaSearch
-
Arnold v. NorthSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Castaneda v. PartidaSearch
-
Partida v. StateSearch
-
See Turner v. FoucheSearch
-
Washington v. DavisSearch
-
Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial