Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lane Vs. Williams

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 23, 1982

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

50 entries 6 linked 44 unlinked
Show
  1. North Carolina Vs. Rice US Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1971
  2. Southern Pacific Terminal Co. Vs. Icc US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1911
  3. WeinsteIn Vs. Bradford US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1975
  4. Murphy Vs. Hunt US Supreme Court · Mar 02, 1982
  5. Henderson Vs. Morgan US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1976
  6. Carafas Vs. Lavallee US Supreme Court · May 20, 1968
  7. U.S. 624 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Lane v. Williams
    Search
  8. U.S. 624 (1982) Lane v. Williams
    Search
  9. Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and ordered Williams released from custody. United States ex rel. Williams v. Morris
    Search
  10. affirmed that decision, 633 F.2d 71 (1980), and we granted the State's petition for certiorari. Sub nom. Franzen v. Williams
    Search
  11. from their convictions, as well as subject them to reconviction with a possibly greater sentence. Cf. North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  12. U. S. 244 , 404 U. S. 248 . The Court of Appeals, relying on Carafas v. LaVallee
    Search
  13. Ibid. (quoting Fiswick v. United
    Search
  14. States, 329 U. S. 211 , 329 U. S. 222 ). In Sibron v. New
    Search
  15. employment prospects, or the sentence imposed in a future criminal proceeding, could be affected. Cf. People v. Halterman
    Search
  16. In People v. Willis
    Search
  17. however, to that considered in Carafas v. LaVallee
    Search
  18. Cf. Boykin v. Alabama
    Search
  19. Santobello v. New
    Search
  20. moot even if the previous sentence had been served and the State indicated that it would not seek a retrial. Carafas v. LaVallee
    Search
  21. Sibron v. New
    Search
  22. that such consequences exist. Id. at 392 U. S. 55 Page 455 U. S. 635 (discussing United States v. Morgan
    Search
  23. U. S. 502 (1954), and Pollard v. United
    Search
  24. States, 352 U. S. 354 (1957)). See also Carafas v. LaVallee
    Search
  25. to that of a defendant who seeks habeas corpus review to correct a sentence already served. See North Carolina v. Rice
    Search
  26. Had respondents served the allegedly void mandatory parole term without incident, I might agree that North Carolina v. Rice
    Search
  27. were found to have violated the conditions of their parole. Therefore, unlike the situation in North Carolina v. Rice
    Search
  28. was sufficient to support the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt and the matter was never retried. See, e.g., People v. Chellew
    Search
  29. Ill.App.3d 963, 313 N.E.2d 284 (1974). Cf. People v. Wunnenberg
    Search
  30. of probation revocation is not rendered moot merely because the defendant has served his entire sentence. See People v. Halterman
    Search
  31. respondents were ever again considered for parole. Mem. to Court of Appeals 5. See also United States ex rel. Howell v. Wolff
    Search
  32. People v. Wunnenberg
    Search
  33. People v. Chellew
    Search
  34. is not a prerequisite to holding that a habeas challenge to a criminal conviction is not moot. See, e.g., Sibron v. New
    Search
  35. York, 392 U. S. 40 , 392 U. S. 54 -57 (1968) (discussing Fiswick v. United
    Search
  36. United States v. Morgan
    Search
  37. Pollard v. United
    Search
  38. U.S. Supreme Court Lane v. Williams
    Search
  39. Williams v. Morris
    Search
  40. Franzen v. Williams
    Search
  41. Cf. North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  42. Fiswick v. United
    Search
  43. In Sibron v. New
    Search
  44. Cf. People v. Halterman
    Search
  45. and Pollard v. United
    Search
  46. See North Carolina v. Rice
    Search
  47. Cf. People v. Wunnenberg
    Search
  48. See People v. Halterman
    Search
  49. Howell v. Wolff
    Search
  50. People v. Wunnenberg
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial