Citation network
Hicks Vs. Feiock
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 27, 1988
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 624 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Hicks v. FeiockSearch
-
U.S. 624 (1988) Hicks v. FeiockSearch
-
Shillitani v. UnitedSearch
-
that it is not correct as a matter of federal law. Allen v. IllinoisSearch
-
Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
Michaelson v. UnitedSearch
-
See Page 485 U. S. 634 also United States v. RylanderSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Nye v. UnitedSearch
-
Fox v. CapitalSearch
-
Doyle v. LondonSearch
-
B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324 (1904). Shillitani v. UnitedSearch
-
If applied in a civil proceeding, however, this particular statute would be constitutionally valid, Maggio v. ZeitzSearch
-
view of federal Page 485 U. S. 641 law. See, e.g., Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. WoldSearch
-
s decisions, 180 Cal.App.3d at 652-655, 225 Cal.Rptr. at 749-751, as did the other state case it cited. See People v. RoderSearch
-
West v. AmericanSearch
-
to those criminal contempts that can be classified as petty offenses, as is true of other petty crimes as well. Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
States, 384 U. S. 364 , 384 U. S. 371 (1966), quoting Anderson v. DunnSearch
-
it is clearly established that the alleged contemnor is unable to comply with the terms of the order. United States v. RylanderSearch
-
States, 313 U. S. 33 , 313 U. S. 42 -43 (1941), quoting Union Tool Co. v. WilsonSearch
-
affirmative defense to a contempt charge, so that the burden of persuasion may be placed on the contemnor under Martin v. OhioSearch
-
shifts the burden of persuasion, rather than merely the burden of production, citing Lyons v. MunicipalSearch
-
Oliver v. SuperiorSearch
-
decision, we should assume that the California Court of Appeal correctly determined these matters of state law. Martin v. OhioSearch
-
the federal due process standards for mandatory evidentiary presumptions in criminal cases. See Ulster County Court v. AllenSearch
-
U. S. 646 upheld a rule that shifts to the contemnor the burden of production on ability to comply, United States v. RylanderSearch
-
and we have recognized that the contemnor may bear the burden of persuasion on this issue as well, Maggio v. ZeitzSearch
-
the purpose of applying the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is itself a question of federal law. Allen v. IllinoisSearch
-
they are civil or criminal, regardless of the label attached by the court conducting the proceedings. See Shillitani v. UnitedSearch
-
party Page 485 U. S. 647 and proportioned to the complainant's loss is compensatory and civil. United States v. MineSearch
-
the California courts have held that civil contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal under state law. See, e.g., Ross v. SuperiorSearch
-
Page 485 U. S. 648 Culver City v. SuperiorSearch
-
but then fails to make a current support payment, the suspension will be revoked and he will go to jail. See People v. ChagollaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hicks v. FeiockSearch
-
Allen v. IllinoisSearch
-
Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. WoldSearch
-
See People v. RoderSearch
-
Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
Anderson v. DunnSearch
-
Martin v. OhioSearch
-
Lyons v. MunicipalSearch
-
See Ulster County Court v. AllenSearch
-
See Shillitani v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial