Citation network
Cuyler Vs. Adams
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 21, 1981
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. 433 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Cuyler v. AdamsSearch
-
U.S. 433 (1981) Cuyler v. AdamsSearch
-
for further proceedings. 592 F.2d 720 (1979). Finding no need to reach respondent's constitutional claims, see Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Art. IV of the Detainer Agreement have no constitutional right to a pretransfer hearing. Commonwealth ex rel. Coleman v. CuylerSearch
-
of an interstate agreement sanctioned by Congress under the Compact Clause presents a federal question. See Petty v. Tennessee-MissouriSearch
-
Dyer v. SimsSearch
-
of the Clause, and will not be invalidated for lack of congressional consent. See, e.g., United States Steel Corp. v. MultistateSearch
-
Tax Comm'n, 434 U. S. 452 , 434 U. S. 468 (1978), quoting Virginia v. TennesseeSearch
-
action in advance or by giving expressed or implied approval to an agreement the States have already joined. Virginia v. TennesseeSearch
-
for the asserted violation by state officials of the terms of the Detainer Agreement. See Maine v. ThiboutotSearch
-
Compare Atkinson v. HanberrySearch
-
Coleman v. CuylerSearch
-
State v. ThompsonSearch
-
Hystad v. RhaySearch
-
and Wertheimer v. StateSearch
-
McQueen v. WyrickSearch
-
Moen v. WilsonSearch
-
Garner v. GraySearch
-
is nowhere defined in the Detainer Agreement, we noted in United States v. MauroSearch
-
doctrine upon which this principle is based had its origin in Pennsylvania v. WheelingSearch
-
Wedding v. MeylerSearch
-
doctrine was questioned in People v. CentralSearch
-
S. 109 (1938), any doubts as to its continued vitality were put to rest in Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Comm'n v. ColburnSearch
-
In People v. CentralSearch
-
the underlying principle that congressional consent can transform interstate compacts into federal law. Accord, Petty v. Tennessee-MissouriSearch
-
Esola v. GroomesSearch
-
Save Lake Tahoe v. TahoeSearch
-
Dyer v. SimsSearch
-
Petty v. Tennessee-MissouriSearch
-
navigable waters and interstate commerce). As JUSTICE WHITE stated, dissenting in United States Steel Corp. v. MultistateSearch
-
See Michigan v. DoranSearch
-
DeGenna v. GrassoSearch
-
F.Supp. 427, 431 (Conn.), aff'd sub nom. Carino v. GrassoSearch
-
compact sanctioned by Congress pursuant to the Compact Clause will present a federal question. See Petty v. Tennessee-MissouriSearch
-
as those terms have come to be understood in the Compact Clause. In New Hampshire v. MaineSearch
-
Id. at 426 U. S. 369 , quoting Virginia v. TennesseeSearch
-
U. S. 503 , 148 U. S. 519 (1893). This rule was reaffirmed in United States Steel Corp. v. MultistateSearch
-
is, however, contrary to the established rule in other contexts. The most fundamental example was discussed in Coyle v. SmithSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial