Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Holden Vs. Hardy

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 28, 1898

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

75 entries 16 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. Virginia Vs. Rives US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
  2. Neal Vs. Delaware US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
  3. Bush Vs. Kentucky US Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1883
  4. Gibson Vs. Mississippi US Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1896
  5. Soon Hing Vs. Crowley US Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1885
  6. Yick Wo Vs. Hopkins US Supreme Court · May 10, 1886
  7. Arrowsmith Vs. Harmoning US Supreme Court · May 10, 1886
  8. Mcmillen Vs. Anderson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1877
  9. Walston Vs. Nevin US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1888
  10. Lawton Vs. Steele US Supreme Court · Mar 06, 1894
  11. Douglas Vs. Kentucky US Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1897
    Relied / Followed
  12. Giozza Vs. Tiernan US Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1893
    Relied / Followed
  13. Kidd Vs. Pearson US Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1888
    Relied / Followed
  14. Crowley Vs. Christensen US Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1890
  15. Barbier Vs. Connolly US Supreme Court · Jan 05, 1885
  16. Minor Vs. Happersett US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1874
  17. U.S. 366 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court Holden v. Hardy
    Search
  18. U.S. 366 (1898) Holden v. Hardy
    Search
  19. are those wherein the colored race was alleged to have been denied the right of representation upon juries, Strauder v. West
    Search
  20. wherein the State was charged with oppressing and unduly discriminating against persons of the Chinese race, Barbier v. Connolly
    Search
  21. U. S. 36 , and Chy Lung v. Freeman
    Search
  22. under this amendment to enforce the right of women to suffrage and to admission to the learned professions, Minor v. Happersett
    Search
  23. Bradwell v. The
    Search
  24. than the others. A reference to a few of these cases may not be inappropriate in this connection. Thus, in Walker v. Sauvinet
    Search
  25. rulings with regard to the necessity of a jury, or of a judicial trial in special proceedings, were made in Kennard v. Louisiana
    Search
  26. Davidson v. New
    Search
  27. Ex parte Wall, 107 U. S. 265 . In Hurtado v. California
    Search
  28. upon such an information, followed by sentence of death, was not illegal under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Hayes v. Missouri
    Search
  29. that there was no error in refusing to limit the State's peremptory challenges to eight In Missouri Railway Co. v. Mackey
    Search
  30. and cattle guards, and make them liable in double the amount of damages claimed for the want of them. In Hallinger v. Davis
    Search
  31. held that the law providing for capital punishment by electricity was not repugnant to this amendment. And in Duncan v. Missouri
    Search
  32. considered within the constitutional inhibition. See also Medley, Petitioner, 134 U. S. 160 , and Holden v. Minnesota
    Search
  33. although the substitution of prosecution by information in lieu of indictment was recognized as valid in Hurtado v. California
    Search
  34. as they arise. Similar views have been heretofore expressed by this court. Thus, in the case of Missouri v. Lewis
    Search
  35. same subject was also elaborately discussed by Mr. Justice Matthews in delivering the opinion of this court in Hurtado v. California
    Search
  36. What shall constitute due process of law was perhaps as well stated by Mr. Justice Curtis in Murray's Lessees v. Hoboken
    Search
  37. It was said by Mr. Justice Miller, in delivering the opinion of this court in Davidson v. New
    Search
  38. be equally invalid. The latest utterance of this court upon this subject is contained in the case of Allgeyer v. Louisiana
    Search
  39. wellbeing and protection, or the safety of adjacent property. While this court has held, notably in the cases Davidson v. New
    Search
  40. Orleans, 96 U. S. 97 , and Yick Wo v. Hopkins
    Search
  41. upon this power are admirably stated by Chief Justice Shaw in the following extract from his opinion in Commonwealth v. Alger
    Search
  42. made subject to stringent police regulations. The power to do this has been repeatedly affirmed by this court. Stone v. Mississippi
    Search
  43. validity assumed, and, so far as we are informed, they have been uniformly held to be constitutional. In Daniels v. Hilgard
    Search
  44. with such determination unless the legislature had manifestly transcended its province. See also Litchfield Coal Co. v. Taylor
    Search
  45. Illinois 590. In Commonwealth v. Bonnell
    Search
  46. tubes, and the protection of cages was held to be constitutional and subject to strict enforcement. Commonwealth v. Conyngham
    Search
  47. Durant v. Lexington
    Search
  48. to women, has been doubted in some of the States, they have been generally upheld. Thus, in the case of Commonwealth v. Hamilton
    Search
  49. of enactments cannot be better stated than by a comparison of the views of this court found in the opinions in Barbier v. Connolly
    Search
  50. U. S. 27 , and Soon Hing v. Crowley
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial