Citation network
Haring Vs. Prosise
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 13, 1983
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. 306 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Haring v. ProsiseSearch
-
U.S. 306 (1983) Haring v. ProsiseSearch
-
a motion to suppress evidence, since a decision to plead guilty may have any number of other motivations. Cf. Tollett v. HendersonSearch
-
right, precluding its assertion in any subsequent proceeding. It relied primarily on this Court's decision in Tollett v. HendersonSearch
-
In Allen v. McCurrySearch
-
suits against police officers to recover for Fourth Amendment violations. The Court in Allen v. McCurrySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Eason v. EasonSearch
-
Va. 347, 350, 131 S.E.2d 280, 282 (1963), quoting Kemp v. MillerSearch
-
in the former judicial proceeding, Virginia law will not treat it as final. See, e.g., Luke Construction Co. v. SimpkinsSearch
-
supra. Compare Brown v. FelsenSearch
-
issues necessary to support the judgment entered in the first action. As the Virginia Supreme Court stated in Petrus v. RobbinsSearch
-
Cf. Block v. CommissionersSearch
-
Segal v. AmericanSearch
-
where the accused's valid waiver of his right to stand trial is accompanied by a confession of guilt. See Kibert v. CommonwealthSearch
-
North Carolina v. AlfordSearch
-
Willett v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
s determination that he would be unable to prevail on a motion to suppress evidence. As we recognized in Brady v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 397 U. S. 742 , 397 U. S. 750 (1970), and reaffirmed in Tollett v. HendersonSearch
-
cannot be regarded as a concession of any kind that a Fourth Amendment evidentiary challenge would fail. Cf. Brown v. FelsenSearch
-
concerning the scope of federal habeas review of a criminal conviction based upon a guilty plea. See, e.g., Brady v. UnitedSearch
-
Menna v. NewSearch
-
cross-examine one's accusers, and to trial by jury. Brady, supra, at 397 U. S. 747 -748, citing Boykin v. AlabamaSearch
-
Brady, supra, at 397 U. S. 748 . In Tollett v. HendersonSearch
-
merit in that constitutional challenge. Id. at 417 U. S. 30 -31. We also applied this principle in Menna v. NewSearch
-
may be raised in federal habeas proceedings following a state court conviction based on a plea of guilty. In Lefkowitz v. NewsomeSearch
-
simple fact that the claim is irrelevant to the constitutional validity of the conviction. As we explained in Menna v. NewSearch
-
interests in preserving federal courts as an available forum for the vindication of constitutional rights. See England v. MedicalSearch
-
Willcox v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
claim in federal court. Brown v. FelsenSearch
-
U.S. at 449 U. S. 98 -99, citing Mitchum v. FosterSearch
-
U. S. 225 , 407 U. S. 241 -242 (1972), and Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
U. S. 167 , 365 U. S. 180 (1961). See Patsy v. FloridaSearch
-
In Metros v. UnitedSearch
-
have been raised in prior proceedings in state court on a different cause of action. See, e.g., New Jersey Ed. Assn. v. BurkeSearch
-
Lombard v. BoardSearch
-
respect to particular issues that were litigated and decided at a criminal trial in state court. As we did in Allen v. McCurrySearch
-
Union & Planters' Bank v. MemphisSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Haring v. ProsiseSearch
-
Cf. Tollett v. HendersonSearch
-
Kemp v. MillerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial