Citation network
United States Vs. Armstrong
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 13, 1996
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. 456 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus United States V. ArmstrongSearch
-
whether to prosecute may not be based 457 on an arbitrary classification such as race or religion. Oyler v. BolesSearch
-
race case, the claimant must show that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted. Ah Sin v. WittmanSearch
-
U. S. 500 . Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
U. S. 79 , and Hunter v. UnderwoodSearch
-
Assuming that discovery is available on an appropriate showing in aid of a selective-prosecution claim, see Wade v. UnitedSearch
-
to obtain discovery. 21 F.3d 1431 , 1436 (1994) (quoting United States v. WayteSearch
-
against the Government's case in chief, but not to the preparation of selective-prosecution claims. In Wade v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
cf. United States v. MezzanattoSearch
-
of the Executive. Heckler v. ChaneySearch
-
to enforce the Nation's criminal laws. Wayte v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 470 U. S. 598 , 607 (1985) (quoting United States v. GoodwinSearch
-
United States v. ChemicalSearch
-
these constraints, imposed by the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Bolling v. SharpeSearch
-
of equal protection of the law. Yick Wo v. HopkinsSearch
-
of a different race were not prosecuted. This requirement has been established in our case law since Ah Sin v. WittmanSearch
-
the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, the power to prosecute. Respondents urge that cases such as Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
U. S. 79 (1986), and Hunter v. UnderwoodSearch
-
the law in question, id., at 227 (quoting Underwood v. HunterSearch
-
discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. United States v. BerriosSearch
-
been prosecuted, but were not, and this requirement is consistent with our equal protection case law. United States v. ParhamSearch
-
United States v. FaresSearch
-
United States v. PeeteSearch
-
C. E. Carlson, Inc. v. SECSearch
-
United States v. GreenwoodSearch
-
United States v. MitchellSearch
-
is discoverable only on a substantial showing of 'necessity or justification''') (quoting Hickman v. TaylorSearch
-
J. Ghent, Development, Since Hickman v. TaylorSearch
-
Rule. See, e. g., Advisory Committee's Notes on Rule 16, 18 U. S. C. App., pp. 762, 763 (discussion of Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
Wayte v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BalkSearch
-
United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
United States v. HindsSearch
-
enforcement and the need for careful scrutiny of any colorable claim of discriminatory enforcement. Cf. McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
Syllabus United States V. ArmstrongSearch
-
Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
and Hunter v. UnderwoodSearch
-
Wade v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. WayteSearch
-
In Wade v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Bolling v. SharpeSearch
-
Underwood v. HunterSearch
-
United States v. BerriosSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial