Citation network
Allen Vs. Hardy
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 30, 1986
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. 255 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Allen v. HardySearch
-
U.S. 255 (1986) Allen v. HardySearch
-
record did not establish systematic exclusion of minorities by prosecutors in the jurisdiction, as required by Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
the Court of Appeals' refusal to issue a certificate of probable cause was erroneous in view of the fact that Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
People v. AllenSearch
-
On appeal, petitioner repeated his argument concerning the State's exercise of peremptory challenges. Relying on Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
Court denied petitioner's motion for discovery to support the claim, and denied relief. United States ex rel. Allen v. HardySearch
-
Allen v. HardySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
State's exercise of its peremptory challenges at his trial violated the Sixth Amendment. United States ex rel. Allen v. HardySearch
-
U. S. 638 , 465 U. S. 643 (1984) (quoting Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
Linkletter v. WalkerSearch
-
supra, at 465 U. S. 646 , 647. The rule in Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
is an explicit and substantial break with prior precedent. In Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
only the first of which may have some impact on truthfinding. See Brown v. LouisianaSearch
-
Tehan v. UnitedSearch
-
and supports a decision that the new rule should not be retroactive. Solem v. StumesSearch
-
Linkletter v. WalkerSearch
-
should be applied to cases that were pending on direct appeal at the time our decision was announced. See Griffith v. KentuckySearch
-
No. 85-5221 (cert. granted, 476 U.S. 1157 (1986)), and Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
substantial reliance by lower courts on the standard in Swain has been fully documented elsewhere. See Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
McCray v. AbramsSearch
-
that petitioner was required to, and did not, establish cause and prejudice excusing his default. See Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
on the merits without affording the parties prior notice or an opportunity to file briefs. See, e.g., Los Angeles v. HellerSearch
-
Cuyahoga Valley R. Co. v. TransportationSearch
-
of the question they ask the Court to consider. Here, because the petition was filed prior to our decision in Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
issue. In addition, that issue has not been addressed by lower courts in this case, or any other. See United States v. HollywoodSearch
-
indeed, I think that factor should generally be decisive. See Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
McCray v. NewSearch
-
the Court finds to counsel against retroactivity here are similarly unpersuasive. While Batson overruled Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Allen v. HardySearch
-
Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
In Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
See Brown v. LouisianaSearch
-
Tehan v. UnitedSearch
-
See Griffith v. KentuckySearch
-
and Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
See Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
See Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
Los Angeles v. HellerSearch
-
See United States v. HollywoodSearch
-
See Williams v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial