Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Watts Vs. Indiana

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 27, 1949

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

37 entries 3 linked 34 unlinked
Show
  1. Marsh Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Jan 07, 1946
  2. Ward Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1942
  3. Chambers Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1940
    Distinguished
  4. U.S. 49 (1949) U.S. Supreme Court Watts v. Indiana
    Search
  5. U.S. 49 (1949) Watts v. Indiana
    Search
  6. provisions, and their proper applications, are issues for this Court's adjudication. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt
    Search
  7. though cast in the form of determinations of fact, are the very issues to review which this Court sits. See Norris v. Alabama
    Search
  8. sustain them. Reversed MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs in the judgment of the Court on the authority of Chambers v. Florida
    Search
  9. does not have the corrective power over State courts that it has over the lower federal courts. See, e.g., McNabb v. United
    Search
  10. under the Due Process Clause even though statements in it may be independently established as true. See Lisenba v. California
    Search
  11. A) Confession was found to be procured under circumstances violative of the Due Process Clause in Haley v. Ohio
    Search
  12. Malinski v. New
    Search
  13. Lomax v. Texas
    Search
  14. Vernon v. Alabama
    Search
  15. White v. Texas
    Search
  16. Canty v. Alabama
    Search
  17. Brown v. Mississippi
    Search
  18. Ashcraft v. Tennessee
    Search
  19. B) Confession was found to have been procured under circumstances not violative of the Due Process Clause in Lyons v. Oklahoma
    Search
  20. U. S. 596 , and Lisenba v. California
    Search
  21. of the magistrate. We should unequivocally condemn the procedure, and stand ready to outlaw, as we did in Malinski v. New
    Search
  22. York, 324 U. S. 401 , and Haley v. Ohio
    Search
  23. For other opinions in No. 76, Harris v. South
    Search
  24. Carolina, and No. 107, Turner v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  25. U.S. Supreme Court Watts v. Indiana
    Search
  26. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt
    Search
  27. See Norris v. Alabama
    Search
  28. of Chambers v. Florida
    Search
  29. McNabb v. United
    Search
  30. See Lisenba v. California
    Search
  31. Haley v. Ohio
    Search
  32. Lyons v. Oklahoma
    Search
  33. and Lisenba v. California
    Search
  34. and Haley v. Ohio
    Search
  35. Harris v. South
    Search
  36. Turner v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  37. Ashcraft v. Tennessee
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial