Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Fay Vs. New York

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 23, 1947

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

70 entries 9 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Akins Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1945
  2. Lisenba Vs. California US Supreme Court · Dec 08, 1941
  3. Virginia Vs. Rives US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
  4. Norris Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1935
  5. Snowden Vs. Hughes US Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1944
  6. Palko Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1937
  7. Mooney Vs. Holohan US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1935
  8. Moore Vs. Dempsey US Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1923
  9. New State Ice Co. Vs. Liebmann US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1932
  10. Fay v. New
    Search
  11. York - 332 U.S. 261 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Fay v. New
    Search
  12. York, 332 U.S. 261 (1947) Fay v. New
    Search
  13. statute providing for the special jury does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Glasser v. United
    Search
  14. Thiel v. Southern
    Search
  15. Ballard v. United
    Search
  16. composition denied due process of law was rejected by the Court of Appeals in a well considered opinion. People v. Dunn
    Search
  17. N.Y. at 362, 56 N.E. at 759, too, was rejected by the Court of Appeals. People v. Meyer
    Search
  18. This Court affirmed, Hall v. Johnson
    Search
  19. U.S. 480, citing, Page 332 U. S. 270 among other authorities, Brown v. New
    Search
  20. is not rendered constitutionally invalid by failure of the statute to set forth any standards for selection. Murray v. Louisiana
    Search
  21. Franklin v. South
    Search
  22. after full allowance of weight to findings of the state courts, and in this case must examine the evidence. Norris v. Alabama
    Search
  23. groups such as lawyers, preachers, ministers, doctors, dentists, and engineers and firemen of railroad trains. Rawlins v. Georgia
    Search
  24. U. S. 638 . Cf. Brown v. New
    Search
  25. Martin v. Texas
    Search
  26. Thomas v. Texas
    Search
  27. Smith v. Texas
    Search
  28. Hill v. Texas
    Search
  29. an unconstitutional kind is alleged, the burden of proving it purposeful and intentional is on the defendant. Tarrance v. Florida
    Search
  30. a defendant's objections to exclusions from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class. Rawlins v. Georgia
    Search
  31. U. S. 638 , 201 U. S. 640 . Cf. Strauder v. West
    Search
  32. to a negro who objected that all white persons were purposely excluded from the grand jury that indicted him. Haraway v. State
    Search
  33. case under the Amendment. These defendants rely heavily on arguments drawn from our decisions in Glasser v. United
    Search
  34. Pacific Co., 328 U. S. 217 , and Ballard v. United
    Search
  35. condemnation shall be rendered only after a trial in which the hearing is a real one, not a sham or pretense. Palko v. Connecticut
    Search
  36. U. S. 86 . Trial must be held before a tribunal not biased by interest in the event. Tumey v. Ohio
    Search
  37. of groups which is not proved to be deliberate and intentional is sufficient to violate the Constitution. Akins v. Texas
    Search
  38. or color. We do not need to find Page 332 U. S. 293 prejudice in these latter exclusions, but cf. Strauder v. West
    Search
  39. variations in practice. The jury system is one which has undergone great modifications in its long history, see People v. Dunn
    Search
  40. Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann
    Search
  41. Together with No. 452, Bove v. New
    Search
  42. are women. It is almost frivolous to assert that there is a bias against their inclusion on juries. Cf. Akins v. Texas
    Search
  43. The other cases cited in the per curiam affirmance were Storti v. Massachusetts
    Search
  44. U. S. 138 , 183 U. S. 141 , and Andrews v. Swartz
    Search
  45. Population v. III
    Search
  46. of the same Amendment. Nor need we decide whether the due process clause alone outlaws such discrimination. Cf. Hill v. Texas
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Fay v. New
    Search
  48. the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Glasser v. United
    Search
  49. People v. Dunn
    Search
  50. the Court of Appeals. People v. Meyer
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial