Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Martinez Vs. California

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 15, 1980

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

34 entries 4 linked 30 unlinked
Show
  1. imbler Vs. Pachtman US Supreme Court · Nov 03, 1975
  2. Ferri Vs. Ackerman US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1979
  3. Mcginnis Vs. Royster US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1973
  4. Aldinger Vs. Howard US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1976
  5. U.S. 277 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Martinez v. California
    Search
  6. U.S. 277 (1980) Martinez v. California
    Search
  7. like this, see McGinnis v. Royster
    Search
  8. Miller v. Twomey
    Search
  9. concerning the immunity of state parole officials as a matter of federal law, because, as we recently held in Baker v. McCollan
    Search
  10. to avoid harm to his victim or to have proximately caused her death, see Grimm v. Arizona
    Search
  11. Palsgraf v. Long
    Search
  12. He was in no sense an agent of the parole board. Cf. Scheuer v. Rhodes
    Search
  13. has broad powers to control governmental tort liability limited only by the rule it not act arbitrarily ( Reed v. City
    Search
  14. et seq. ) has been found constitutional ( Datil v. City
    Search
  15. U. S. 386 , 330 U. S. 391 , quoting Clafin v. Houseman
    Search
  16. U. S. 130 , 93 U. S. 137 . See also Aldinger v. Howard
    Search
  17. Grubb v. Public
    Search
  18. in the state courts, the state courts are generally not free to refuse enforcement of the federal claim. Testa v. Katt
    Search
  19. supra at 330 U. S. 394 . But see Chamberlain v. Brown
    Search
  20. and the supremacy clause of the Constitution insures that the proper construction may be enforced. See McLaughlin v. Tilendis
    Search
  21. Hampton v. Chicago
    Search
  22. Baker v. McCollan
    Search
  23. Compare the facts in Screws v. United
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court Martinez v. California
    Search
  25. Miller v. Twomey
    Search
  26. Grimm v. Arizona
    Search
  27. Cf. Scheuer v. Rhodes
    Search
  28. Reed v. City
    Search
  29. Datil v. City
    Search
  30. Clafin v. Houseman
    Search
  31. Chamberlain v. Brown
    Search
  32. See McLaughlin v. Tilendis
    Search
  33. Screws v. United
    Search
  34. Testa v. Katt
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales