Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hoag Vs. New Jersey

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 19, 1958

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

57 entries 6 linked 51 unlinked
Show
  1. Palko Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1937
  2. Maxwell Vs. Dow US Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1900
  3. West Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · May 02, 1904
  4. United States Vs. Oppenheimer US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1916
  5. Watts Vs. Indiana US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1949
  6. United States Vs. Dotterweich US Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1943
  7. Hoag v. New
    Search
  8. Jersey - 356 U.S. 464 (1958) U.S. Supreme Court Hoag v. New
    Search
  9. Jersey, 356 U.S. 464 (1958) Hoag v. New
    Search
  10. that these safeguards, as such, are carried over under the Fourteenth Amendment as restrictions on the States. Palko v. Connecticut
    Search
  11. State v. Labato
    Search
  12. the States should have the widest latitude in the administration of their own systems of criminal justice. See Hurtado v. California
    Search
  13. Twining v. New
    Search
  14. Brock v. North
    Search
  15. offenses, we reach the conclusion that the petitioner in this case was not deprived of due process. In Brock v. North
    Search
  16. widely employed in criminal cases in both Page 356 U. S. 471 state and federal courts. See, e.g., Harris v. State
    Search
  17. Commonwealth v. Evans
    Search
  18. Sealfon v. United
    Search
  19. Yates v. United
    Search
  20. A.2d at 632. Possessing no such corrective power over state courts as we do over the federal courts, see Watts v. Indiana
    Search
  21. examine the record in a state criminal trial, and is not foreclosed by the conclusion of the state court. Niemotko v. Maryland
    Search
  22. Feiner v. New
    Search
  23. to determine with certainty which issues were decided by the former general verdict of acquittal. See, e.g., People v. Rogers
    Search
  24. State v. Erwin
    Search
  25. United States v. Halbrook
    Search
  26. F.Supp. 345. Keeping in mind the fact that jury verdicts are sometimes inconsistent or irrational, see, e.g., Dunn v. United
    Search
  27. Green v. United
    Search
  28. of these undisputed facts, the task of making that evaluation is inescapably the function of this Court. Niemotko v. Maryland
    Search
  29. Fay v. New
    Search
  30. of a particular issue that was contested at that trial. This Court unanimously found the record in Sealfon v. United
    Search
  31. States, supra, sufficient to justify such a conclusion. Cf. Emich Motors Corp. v. General
    Search
  32. Harris v. State
    Search
  33. People v. Grzesczak
    Search
  34. petitioner was present at the scene of the robbery. Page 356 U. S. 477 The Court's effort to enlist Brock v. North
    Search
  35. Amendment. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs, dissenting. We recently stated in Green v. United
    Search
  36. was indicted for robbing one of the remaining five named individuals. The criminal transaction, unlike that in Burton v. United
    Search
  37. See Brock v. North
    Search
  38. Gavieres v. United
    Search
  39. to their independence, has not been deemed an authoritative construction of the constitutional provision. See Green v. United
    Search
  40. Chitty, Criminal Law (5th Am. ed. 1847), 455. To like effect is State v. Shepard
    Search
  41. State v. Cooper
    Search
  42. Commonwealth v. Roby
    Search
  43. The result I reach does not square with Palko v. Connecticut
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court Hoag v. New
    Search
  45. the States. Palko v. Connecticut
    Search
  46. See Hurtado v. California
    Search
  47. In Brock v. North
    Search
  48. Yates v. United
    Search
  49. Niemotko v. Maryland
    Search
  50. People v. Rogers
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial