Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Dusenbery Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 08, 2002

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

46 entries 7 linked 39 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Minor US Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1885
  2. Robinson Vs. Hanrahan US Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1972
  3. Greene Vs. Lindsey US Supreme Court · May 17, 1982
  4. Mennonite Bd. of Missions Vs. Adams US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1983
  5. Mathews Vs. Eldridge US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1976
  6. Grannis Vs. Ordean US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1914
  7. Houston Vs. Lack US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1988
    Relied / Followed
  8. Dusenbery v. United
    Search
  9. States - 534 U.S. 161 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Dusenbery V. United
    Search
  10. United States v. James
    Search
  11. Good Real Property, 510 U. S. 43 , 48. The straightforward reasonableness under the circumstances test of Mullane v. Central
    Search
  12. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306 , 313, not the balancing test approach of Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  13. Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams
    Search
  14. CV-1872 (ND Ohio, Jan. 19, 1999). The Court of Appeals affirmed. 223 F.3d 422 (CA6 2000). Citing Mullane v. Central
    Search
  15. et seq. (1994 ed.). 3 See, e. g., Whiting v. United
    Search
  16. Yeung Mung Weng v. United
    Search
  17. United States v. One
    Search
  18. United States v. Woodall
    Search
  19. Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  20. that will be affected by the official action, (2) a cost-benefit analysis of the risks of an erroneous deprivation v. the
    Search
  21. Social Security disability benefits. Although we have since invoked Mathews to evaluate due process claims in other v. Real
    Search
  22. United States v. Clark
    Search
  23. sufficient to send certified mail to prisoner at jail where he was located). 168 contexts, see Medina v. California
    Search
  24. New York City v. New
    Search
  25. Walker v. City
    Search
  26. Schroeder v. City
    Search
  27. Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope
    Search
  28. see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 23. 4 E. g., Mullane v. Central
    Search
  29. Hart v. Lancashire
    Search
  30. Grannis v. Ordean
    Search
  31. Mullane v. Central
    Search
  32. I The Court correctly identifies the foundational case on reasonable notice as a due process requirement, Mullane v. Central
    Search
  33. See Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope
    Search
  34. Weng v. United
    Search
  35. See United States v. One
    Search
  36. Houston v. Lack
    Search
  37. Syllabus Dusenbery V. United
    Search
  38. of Mullane v. Central
    Search
  39. of Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  40. Citing Mullane v. Central
    Search
  41. Whiting v. United
    Search
  42. Medina v. California
    Search
  43. New York City v. New
    Search
  44. Hart v. Lancashire
    Search
  45. See Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope
    Search
  46. See United States v. One
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales