Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Stefanelli Vs. Minard

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 03, 1951

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

60 entries 5 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. Fenner Vs. Boykin US Supreme Court · May 24, 1926
  2. Collins Vs. Hardyman US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1951
  3. Pierre Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1939
  4. Wolf Vs. Colorado US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1949
  5. Hurn Vs. Oursler US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1933
  6. U.S. 117 (1951) U.S. Supreme Court Stefanelli v. Minard
    Search
  7. U.S. 117 (1951) Stefanelli v. Minard
    Search
  8. is admissible without regard to the illegality of its procurement. Petitioners invoke our decision in Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  9. requirement, bearing on a Page 342 U. S. 121 State's enforcement of its criminal law. E.g., Watson v. Buck
    Search
  10. Beal v. Missouri
    Search
  11. Spielman Motor Co. v. Dodge
    Search
  12. It has received striking confirmation even where an important countervailing federal interest was involved. Maryland v. Soper
    Search
  13. Screws v. United
    Search
  14. prosecution is Page 342 U. S. 122 one of the devices we have sanctioned for preserving this balance. Douglas v. City
    Search
  15. relief in equity even when recognizing that comparable facts would create a cause of action for damages. Compare Giles v. Harris
    Search
  16. U. S. 475 , with Lane v. Wilson
    Search
  17. U. S. 268 . In Douglas v. City
    Search
  18. in the New Jersey courts. Such a conviction, we have held, would not deprive them of due process of law. Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  19. Hague v. CIO
    Search
  20. We recently commented on the circumstances surrounding the enactment of this legislation in United States v. Williams
    Search
  21. U. S. 70 , 341 U. S. 74 , and Collins v. Hardyman
    Search
  22. In these respects, the case differs from Hague v. CIO
    Search
  23. Douglas v. City
    Search
  24. Cobbledick v. United
    Search
  25. Hurn v. Oursler
    Search
  26. See Smith v. Texas
    Search
  27. See Strauder v. West
    Search
  28. See Powell v. Alabama
    Search
  29. See Watts v. Indiana
    Search
  30. See Moore v. Dempsey
    Search
  31. See Townsend v. Burke
    Search
  32. of a biased jury and subjected her to a fraudulent trial resulting in a conviction reversed on appeal. McShane v. Moldovan
    Search
  33. Picking v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  34. arrest and detention in violation of the Uniform Extradition Act sustained against motion to dismiss). But see Campo v. Niemeyer
    Search
  35. Lyons v. Baker
    Search
  36. Bottone v. Lindsley
    Search
  37. Mitchell v. Greenough
    Search
  38. Llano Del Rio Co. v. Anderson-Post
    Search
  39. that particular phases of criminal proceedings are unfair. The lower courts have refused to intervene. Cooper v. Hutchinson
    Search
  40. Ackerman v. International
    Search
  41. McGuire v. Amrein
    Search
  42. Erickson v. Hogan
    Search
  43. Refoule v. Ellis
    Search
  44. Eastus v. Bradshaw
    Search
  45. F.2d 788. And see Hoffman v. O'Brien
    Search
  46. controversy. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. Mr. Justice Murphy, Mr. Justice Rutledge, and I voted in Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Stefanelli v. Minard
    Search
  48. E.g., Watson v. Buck
    Search
  49. Compare Giles v. Harris
    Search
  50. Lane v. Wilson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial