Citation network
Salsburg Vs. Maryland
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 11, 1954
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
-
U.S. 545 (1954) U.S. Supreme Court Salsburg v. MarylandSearch
-
U.S. 545 (1954) Salsburg v. MarylandSearch
-
of the illegality of the search or seizure, because they had no title to or interest in the premises searched. Rizzo v. MarylandSearch
-
law practice of admitting evidence in criminal prosecutions without regard to the legality of its obtention. Lawrence v. MarylandSearch
-
Md. 17, 32-37, 63 A. 96, 102-104. In 1914, the decision in Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
of Appeals of Maryland declined to adopt that practice, and reaffirmed the Maryland common law practice. Meisinger v. MarylandSearch
-
This left the common law practice in effect in felony cases. Marshall v. MarylandSearch
-
Delnegro v. MarylandSearch
-
followed diametrically opposite policies as to the admission of illegally seized evidence. See Appendix, Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
U. S. 25 , 338 U. S. 33 -39. See also Adams v. NewSearch
-
Metropolis Theater Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 61 , 228 U. S. 69 -70. See also Dominion Hotel v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 265 , 249 U. S. 268 . Cf. Johnson v. MarylandSearch
-
Missouri v. LewisSearch
-
having in mind the needs and desires of each. Territorial uniformity is not a constitutional requisite. Ocampo v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 101 U. S. 31 . See also Mallett v. NorthSearch
-
E.g., as to local option in relation to intoxicating liquor, see Lloyd v. DollisonSearch
-
U. S. 504 , and see Fort Smith Light & Traction Co. v. BoardSearch
-
Neuenschwander v. WashingtonSearch
-
Stevens v. MarylandSearch
-
Md. 669, 674, 43 A. 929, 931. Cf. Maryland Coal & Realty Co. v. BureauSearch
-
Atchison, T. & S.F. R. Co. v. MatthewsSearch
-
Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. BrownellSearch
-
U. S. 580 , 294 U. S. 584 . See also Middleton v. TexasSearch
-
Lindsley v. NaturalSearch
-
Semler v. OregonSearch
-
S. 28 . MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. I am still of the view, expressed on other occasions ( see Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
Schwartz v. PageSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Salsburg v. MarylandSearch
-
Rizzo v. MarylandSearch
-
Lawrence v. MarylandSearch
-
Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
Meisinger v. MarylandSearch
-
Marshall v. MarylandSearch
-
See Appendix, Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
Adams v. NewSearch
-
Dominion Hotel v. ArizonaSearch
-
Cf. Johnson v. MarylandSearch
-
Ocampo v. UnitedSearch
-
Mallett v. NorthSearch
-
Fort Smith Light & Traction Co. v. BoardSearch
-
Cf. Maryland Coal & Realty Co. v. BureauSearch
-
Middleton v. TexasSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial