Citation network
Galloway Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 24, 1943
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
-
Galloway v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 319 U.S. 372 (1943) U.S. Supreme Court Galloway v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 319 U.S. 372 (1943) Galloway v. UnitedSearch
-
and therefore their effect has been to deprive him of a jury trial. Petitioner relies particularly upon Halliday v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 315 U. S. 94 , and Berry v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 312 U. S. 450 , citing also Gunning v. CooleySearch
-
evidence over which the medical eye could travel and find continuity through the intervening years. Cf. Halliday v. UnitedSearch
-
Atkins v. UnitedSearch
-
Berry v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that the Amendment guarantees another trial whenever challenge to the sufficiency of evidence is sustained. Cf. Berry v. UnitedSearch
-
Compare Bishop v. CoppSearch
-
Murphree v. SennSearch
-
without affording jury trial in cases of this sort and without offending the requirements of the Amendment. McElrath v. UnitedSearch
-
Pence v. UnitedSearch
-
Whitney v. UnitedSearch
-
Hacker v. UnitedSearch
-
Law v. UnitedSearch
-
Improvement Co. v. MunsonSearch
-
Ewing v. GoodeSearch
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. WaltersSearch
-
Rex v. PaineSearch
-
Folkes v. ChaddSearch
-
Cf. Thoe v. ChicagoSearch
-
Gasoline Products Co. v. ChamplinSearch
-
Walker v. NewSearch
-
cf. Stone, J., dissenting in Dimick v. SchiedtSearch
-
Seventh Amendment because, at the time of its adoption, evidence now admitted would have been excluded. Cf. e.g., Funk v. UnitedSearch
-
Johnson, J., dissenting in Elmore v. GrymesSearch
-
Oscanyan v. WinchesterSearch
-
see the historical survey in the comprehensive opinion of McAllister, J., in Hopkins v. RailroadSearch
-
of course, differed in consequence from the directed verdict, for it left the plaintiff free to try again. Oscanyan v. WinchesterSearch
-
Similarly, the demurrer to the evidence practice was not static during this period, as a comparison of Cocksedge v. FanshawSearch
-
Doug. 118, with Gibson v. HunterSearch
-
H.Bl. 187, and the American practice on the demurrer to the evidence reveals ( see, e.g., Stephens v. WhiteSearch
-
Patrick v. HallettSearch
-
Whittington v. ChristianSearch
-
was the conception of directing a verdict entirely unknown to the eighteenth century common law. See, e.g., Wilkinson v. KitchinSearch
-
Syderbottom v. SmithSearch
-
has been taken, on the one hand, without reservation of the question of the sufficiency of the evidence, Slocum v. NewSearch
-
Ins. Co., 228 U. S. 364 , and, on the other hand, with such a reservation, Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. RedmanSearch
-
U. S. 654 . Cf. Aetna Ins. Co. v. KennedySearch
-
Pawling v. UnitedSearch
-
Cocksedge v. FanshawSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Galloway v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial