Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Spencer Vs. Kemna

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 12, 1997

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

81 entries 13 linked 68 unlinked
Show
  1. Maleng Vs. Cook US Supreme Court · May 15, 1989
  2. Parker Vs. Ellis US Supreme Court · May 16, 1960
  3. Pennsylvania Vs. Mimms US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1977
  4. Minnesota Vs. Dickerson US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1993
  5. Baker Vs. Carr US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1962
  6. O'Shea Vs. Littleton US Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1974
  7. Heck Vs. Humphrey US Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1994
  8. Preiser Vs. Newkirk US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1975
  9. Evitts Vs. Lucey US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1985
  10. Flast Vs. Cohen US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
  11. Edwards Vs. Balisok US Supreme Court · May 19, 1997
  12. Murphy Vs. Hunt US Supreme Court · Mar 02, 1982
  13. Norman Vs. Reed US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1992
  14. Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States at October Term, 1997 Syllabus Spencer V. Kemna
    Search
  15. or, what is effectively the same, has counted collateral consequences that are remote and unlikely to occur). Sibron v. New
    Search
  16. York, 392 U. S. 40 , 55-56. However, in Lane v. Williams
    Search
  17. unless he can establish his parole revocation's invalidity, see Heck v. Humphrey
    Search
  18. of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment,2 concluding that, under our decision in Lane v. Williams
    Search
  19. that this interpretation of Lane did not accord with that of the Second and Ninth Circuits in United States v. Parker
    Search
  20. scheduled to be released on parole on January 24, 1999. See Brief for Respondents 8, n. 4. 7 and Robbins v. Christianson
    Search
  21. Lewis v. Continental
    Search
  22. Bank Corp., 494 U. S. 472 , 477-478 (1990). See also Preiser v. Newkirk
    Search
  23. or, what is effectively the same, to count collateral consequences that are remote and unlikely to occur). See Sibron v. New
    Search
  24. of the right to vote, to hold office, to serve on a jury, or to engage in certain businesses). Thus, in St. Pierre v. United
    Search
  25. U. S., at 237 (footnotes and citation omitted). See also Fiswick v. United
    Search
  26. United States v. Morgan
    Search
  27. Ginsberg v. New
    Search
  28. conviction rendered petitioner liable to revocation of his license to operate luncheonette business). Cf. Tannenbaum v. New
    Search
  29. Jacobs v. New
    Search
  30. per curiam). The gateway to abandonment of this fastidious approach to collateral consequences was Pollard v. United
    Search
  31. case involving consequences for an alien (which there is no reason to 10 believe Pollard was), see Pino v. Landon
    Search
  32. U. S. 901 (1955). In Sibron v. New
    Search
  33. and hypothetical of consequences as sufficient to avoid mootness in challenges to conviction. For example, in Evitts v. Lucey
    Search
  34. Ibid. See also Benton v. Maryland
    Search
  35. from averments in the pleadings,' but rather 3 Sibron also purported to rely on United States v. Morgan
    Search
  36. U. S. 502 (1954), and Fiswick v. United
    Search
  37. PBS, Inc. v. Dallas
    Search
  38. U. S. 186 , 204 (1962). Sibron appears in the same volume of the United States Reports as Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  39. Id., at 100-10l. See Benton v. Maryland
    Search
  40. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans
    Search
  41. id., at 476. See also Lujan v. Defenders
    Search
  42. consequences (or our willingness to accept hypothetical consequences) to the area of parole revocation. In Lane v. Williams
    Search
  43. as a result of the petitioner's conviction, he was presently 4 The internal quotation is from a portion of Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  44. Shaw v. Missouri
    Search
  45. U. S. 488 , 497 (1974). See also Los Angeles v. Lyons
    Search
  46. used against him directly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 4056 (or Missouri's state-law equivalent, see Durbin v. Cassalo
    Search
  47. more reliable evidence of two past criminal convictions that would achieve the same purpose of impeachment, see State v. Comstock
    Search
  48. it is not even clear that a Missouri court could legally admit the parole revocation to impeach petitioner. See State v. Newman
    Search
  49. unnecessary the inquiry into concrete collateral consequences of conviction in many of our cases, see, e. g., Benton v. Maryland
    Search
  50. raises three more arguments, none of which seems to us well taken. First, he contends that since our decision in Heck v. Humphrey
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial