Citation network
Hernandez Vs. New York
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 28, 1991
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Hernandez v. NewSearch
-
York - 500 U.S. 352 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Hernandez v. NewSearch
-
York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) Hernandez v. NewSearch
-
waiting for a ruling on whether Hernandez had established a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
Hernandez made a prima facie showing of discrimination is moot. Cf. United States Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. AikensSearch
-
intent or purpose that is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. See Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
of whether it is a state court decision and whether it relates to a constitutional issue. See, e.g., 324 Liquor Corp. v. DuffySearch
-
appellate review of a state trial court's denial of a Batson claim is rejected. Bose Corp. v. ConsumersSearch
-
like skin color, should be treated as a surrogate for race under an equal protection analysis. Cf., e.g., Yu Cong Eng v. TrinidadSearch
-
s nonracial justification, and that finding is not clearly erroneous, that is the end of the inquiry. Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
use of peremptory strikes would violate the Equal Protection Clause as interpreted by our decision in Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
United States Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. AikensSearch
-
Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
Washington v. DavisSearch
-
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. FeeneySearch
-
McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
to the impact of a classification does not alone show its purpose. See Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. FeeneySearch
-
Washington v. DavisSearch
-
of intentional discrimination is a finding of fact' entitled to appropriate deference by a reviewing court. Anderson v. BessemerSearch
-
under a deferential standard, accords with our treatment of that issue in other equal protection cases. See Hunter v. UnderwoodSearch
-
Dayton Board of Education v. BrinkmanSearch
-
Miller v. FentonSearch
-
suggests, it also corresponds with our treatment of the intent inquiry under Title VII. See Pullman-Standard v. SwintSearch
-
U. S. 412 , 469 U. S. 428 (1985), citing Patton v. YountSearch
-
Page 500 U. S. 366 should apply to review of findings in criminal cases on issues other than guilt. Maine v. TaylorSearch
-
Campbell v. UnitedSearch
-
defer to state court factual findings, even when those findings relate to a constitutional issue. See 324 Liquor Corp. v. DuffySearch
-
California Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
Time, Inc. v. FirestoneSearch
-
U. S. 436 , 377 U. S. 441 -442 (1964) (quoting Norton Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
supra, 474 U.S. at 474 U. S. 113 (citing Dayton Board of Education v. BrinkmanSearch
-
that has been settled, there seems nothing left to review. Petitioner seeks support for his argument in Bose Corp. v. ConsumersSearch
-
Union of United States, Inc., 466 U. S. 485 (1984) and Miller v. FentonSearch
-
Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. ConnaughtonSearch
-
Court's decisions reviewing state court challenges to jury selection procedures. Many of these cases, following Norris v. AlabamaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial