Citation network
Snowden Vs. Hughes
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 17, 1944
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 1 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Snowden v. HughesSearch
-
U.S. 1 (1944) Snowden v. HughesSearch
-
Amendment. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, 132 F.2d 476, holding, on authority of Barney v. CitySearch
-
Madden v. KentuckySearch
-
The right to become a candidate for state office, like the right to vote for the election of state officers, Minor v. HappersettSearch
-
office is not a denial of a right of property or of liberty secured by the due process clause. Taylor & Marshall v. BeckhamSearch
-
Only once since has this Court had occasion to consider the question and it then reaffirmed that conclusion, Cave v. NewellSearch
-
This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, cf. McFarland v. AmericanSearch
-
discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over another not to be inferred from the action itself, Yick Wo v. HopkinsSearch
-
U. S. 356 , 118 U. S. 373 -374. But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed, Tarrance v. FloridaSearch
-
Ah Sin v. WittmanSearch
-
may be shown by extrinsic evidence of a purposeful discriminatory administration of a statute fair on its face. Neal v. DelawareSearch
-
Smith v. TexasSearch
-
Hill v. TexasSearch
-
there must be a showing of actual discrimination because of race. Virginia v. RivesSearch
-
Martin v. TexasSearch
-
Thomas v. TexasSearch
-
Williams v. MississippiSearch
-
breach of law is the same as though the discrimination were incorporated in and proclaimed by the statute. Courter v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. BabcockSearch
-
Southern R. Co. v. WattsSearch
-
equal protection, even though it is neither systematic Page 321 U. S. 10 nor long continued. Cf. McFarland v. AmericanSearch
-
of petitioner's right to be certified to a nomination to which no other has been certified. Cf. United States v. IllinoisSearch
-
Mere violation of a state statute does not infringe the federal Constitution. Compare Owensboro Water Works Co. v. OwensboroSearch
-
under the Fourteenth Amendment than if it were sanctioned by the state legislature. Nashville, C. & St.L. R. v. BrowningSearch
-
U. S. 362 , 310 U. S. 369 -370. See also Courter v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Hayman v. GalvestonSearch
-
Iowa-Des Moines Nat. Bank v. BennettSearch
-
that the exclusion of one and the election of another were invidious and purposely discriminatory. Compare Missouri v. LewisSearch
-
equal protection clause is not diminished by the fact that the discrimination relates to political rights. McPherson v. BlackerSearch
-
Pope v. WilliamsSearch
-
to state office is, without more, a denial of any right secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Taylor and Marshall v. BeckhamSearch
-
Cave v. MissouriSearch
-
or legislative authority of the right to state office is, for that reason alone, a denial of equal protection. Wilson v. NorthSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial