Citation network
Carchmer Vs. Nash
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 02, 1985
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. 716 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Carchmer v. NashSearch
-
U.S. 716 (1985) Carchmer v. NashSearch
-
cl. 3, and thus is a federal law subject to federal construction. Cuyler v. AdamsSearch
-
Council of State Governments, Suggested State Legislation, Program for 1957, p. 74 (1956). See also Cuyler v. AdamsSearch
-
Nash v. JeffesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Emphasis added.) The language of Art. V alsoSearch
-
is entitled to less than the full panoply of due process rights accorded a defendant at a criminal trial. See Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
U. S. 778 (1973). Cf. Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
appears in the legislative declaration of purpose, is read in the context of the operative language of Arts. III and v. discussedSearch
-
only to detainers based on untried criminal Page 473 U. S. 729 charges. The Court noted in United States v. MauroSearch
-
U.S. at 436 U. S. 359 , and in Cuyler v. AdamsSearch
-
Because the convictions conclusively establish the probation violation, see Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
probation's being revoked and in the probationer's being resentenced to imprisonment in the receiving State. See Moody v. DaggettSearch
-
of guilt of the probation violation charge when it is established by a conviction in the sending State, see Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
Barker v. WingoSearch
-
U. S. 374 , 393 U. S. 378 (1969), quoting United States v. EwellSearch
-
to delay, rather than to expedite, disposition of the probation violation charge. As the Court explained in Moody v. DaggettSearch
-
Together with No. 84-835, New Jersey Department of Corrections v. NashSearch
-
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and of four state courts of last resort. See United States v. RoachSearch
-
Padilla v. StateSearch
-
Suggs v. HopperSearch
-
Clipper v. StateSearch
-
State v. KnowlesSearch
-
S.E.2d 133 (1980). It also conflicts with rulings of several intermediate state appellate courts. See, e.g., People v. JacksonSearch
-
Capalongo v. HowardSearch
-
Blackwell v. StateSearch
-
S.W.2d 828 (Tenn. Crim. App.1976). See Nash v. JeffesSearch
-
Note, Detainers and the Correctional Process, 1966 Wash.U.L.Q. 417, 423 (footnote omitted). See also United States v. MauroSearch
-
Cooper v. LockhartSearch
-
have the State, upon demand, make a diligent, good-faith effort to bring him to trial within a reasonable time. Smith v. HooeySearch
-
U. S. 374 (1969). The congressional Reports discuss Smith v. HooeySearch
-
to a probation violation detainer has a constitutional right to a speedy probation revocation hearing. Cf. Moody v. DaggettSearch
-
significant measure, and reverses the rationale of our other major precedent construing the Agreement, United States v. MauroSearch
-
Cuyler v. AdamsSearch
-
Dowling v. UnitedSearch
-
a probationer is now entitled to an in-person hearing before a term of incarceration is reimposed, Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
Black v. RomanoSearch
-
Council of State Governments, Handbook on Interstate Crime Control 134 (1978 ed.). See also Cuyler v. AdamsSearch
-
knowledge that commission of further crimes while on probation is an automatic violation under New Jersey law. State v. ZachowskiSearch
-
Bob Jones University v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial