Citation network
Schall Vs. Martin
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 04, 1984
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. 253 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Schall v. MartinSearch
-
U.S. 253 (1984) Schall v. MartinSearch
-
without due process of law and ordered the immediate release of all class members. United States ex rel. Martin v. StrasburgSearch
-
Martin v. StrasburgSearch
-
had already rejected an identical challenge to the juvenile preventive detention statute. See People ex rel. Wayburn v. SchupfSearch
-
the Constitution does not mandate elimination of all differences in the treatment of juveniles. See, e.g., McKeiver v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
demanded by the Due Process Clause. Breed v. JonesSearch
-
See Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
See Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
designed to protect the child and society from the potential consequences of his criminal acts. People ex rel. Wayburn v. SchupfSearch
-
In re Craig S., 57 App.Div.2d 761, 394 N.Y.S.2d 200 (1977). In Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
in protecting the community from crime cannot be doubted. De Veau v. BraistedSearch
-
U. S. 144 , 363 U. S. 155 (1960). See also Terry v. OhioSearch
-
Brown v. TexasSearch
-
must be qualified by the recognition that juveniles, unlike adults, are always in some form of custody. Lehman v. LycomingSearch
-
of their parents, and if parental control falters, the State must play its part as parens patriae. See State v. GleasonSearch
-
Wayburn v. SchupfSearch
-
Baker v. SmithSearch
-
an arrest and from the downward spiral of criminal activity into which peer pressure may lead the child. See L.O.W. v. DistrictSearch
-
Morris v. D'AmarioSearch
-
A.2d 137, 140 (R.I.1980). See also Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
reference to protecting the juvenile and the community from harmful pretrial conduct, including pretrial crime. L.O.W. v. DistrictSearch
-
State v. GleasonSearch
-
Pauley v. GrossSearch
-
Aubrey v. GadboisSearch
-
Sprowal v. HendrickSearch
-
principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.' Snyder v. MassachusettsSearch
-
demanded by the Due Process Clause in juvenile proceedings. Cf. McKeiver v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
b) are in fact compatible with those purposes. Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSearch
-
supra, at 372 U. S. 168 -189. See Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
to the legality of a pretrial detention. Baker v. McCollanSearch
-
to factfinding provide sufficient protection against erroneous and unnecessary deprivations of liberty. See Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
In Gerstein v. PughSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Schall v. MartinSearch
-
Wayburn v. SchupfSearch
-
McKeiver v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
the Due Process Clause. Breed v. JonesSearch
-
In Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
De Veau v. BraistedSearch
-
Terry v. OhioSearch
-
Lehman v. LycomingSearch
-
See State v. GleasonSearch
-
See L.O.W. v. DistrictSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial