Citation network
Sumner Vs. Mata
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. 539 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Sumner v. MataSearch
-
U.S. 539 (1981) Sumner v. MataSearch
-
The California Court of Appeal analyzed his contention under the test earlier enunciated by this Court in Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
But the present doctrine, adumbrated in the Court's opinion in Moore v. DempseySearch
-
U. S. 86 (1923), and culminating in this Court's opinion in Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
to factual determinations made by state courts, whether the court be a trial court or an appellate court. Cf. Swenson v. StidhamSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
for the state trial court to consider the issue, because respondent failed to raise the issue at that level. See Souza v. HowardSearch
-
Last Term, we denied Page 449 U. S. 548 certiorari in Lombard v. TaylorSearch
-
d). Taylor v. LombardSearch
-
the various provisions of subsection (d), and never in a context similar to the one presented here. See, e.g., Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
LaVallee v. DelleSearch
-
Page 449 U. S. 551 Although arising in a much different context, we think the recent language used in Addington v. TexasSearch
-
d). Cf. Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCCSearch
-
This Court previously reserved the question in Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
d). Compare Drayton v. HayesSearch
-
White v. FinkbeinerSearch
-
Payne v. CardwellSearch
-
Hill v. NelsonSearch
-
F.2d 1346, 1348 (CA9 1972), with Souza v. HowardSearch
-
Harris v. IllinoisSearch
-
intended by Congress as limitations on the exercise of that jurisdiction. As we held in Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. MottleySearch
-
Sanders v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 373 U. S. 1 , 373 U. S. 24 -25 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting). See also Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
respondent argued that the use of this identification evidence violated his due process rights as defined in Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 335 , 446 U. S. 342 (1980) (quoting Townsend v. SainSearch
-
Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
supra, at 430 U. S. 403 (quoting Brown v. AllenSearch
-
U. S. 188 , 409 U. S. 193 , n. 3 (1972). Cf. Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
test of Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 449 U. S. 559 Townsend v. SainSearch
-
Taylor v. LombardSearch
-
United States v. CalhounSearch
-
People v. SuttleSearch
-
not suggest, nor could it, that this case falls within the exception to this general principle enunciated in Stone v. PowellSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Sumner v. MataSearch
-
Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
Moore v. DempseySearch
-
Cf. Swenson v. StidhamSearch
-
See Souza v. HowardSearch
-
Lombard v. TaylorSearch
-
Taylor v. LombardSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial