Citation network
Raley Vs. Ohio
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 22, 1959
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
-
U.S. 423 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Raley v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. 423 (1959) Raley v. OhioSearch
-
on prior appeals, the judgments below were vacated and the causes remanded for reconsideration in the light of Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234 , and Watkins v. UnitedSearch
-
to investigate activities deemed subversive of the forms of government within the Nation, cf. Pennsylvania v. NelsonSearch
-
the State to compel disclosure of matters interconnected with the protected freedoms of speech and assembly, cf. NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
legislative interest for such an inquiry, and its definition and articulation to the person summoned, cf. Watkins v. UnitedSearch
-
effect on testimonial compulsion of state immunity statutes not affording immunity from federal prosecution, cf. Knapp v. SchweitzerSearch
-
rejected. As we have noted, on remand from this Court, the Ohio Supreme Court passed on contentions made under Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
Hampshire, supra, and Watkins v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Charleston Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. AldersonSearch
-
of a state statute in the state courts, and we have found none. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. See Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
presentation of a federal claim when the highest state court passes on it. See Manhattan Life Ins. Co. of New York v. CohenSearch
-
against self-incrimination as has been held to be necessary under the statute punishing contempts of Congress. Quinn v. UnitedSearch
-
Emspak v. UnitedSearch
-
Bart v. UnitedSearch
-
have insisted that state investigators make clear to those before them the basis on which an answer is required. Scull v. VirginiaSearch
-
a citizen for exercising a privilege which the State clearly had told him was available to him. Cf. Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
-
in language so vague and undefined as to afford no fair warning of what conduct might transgress them. Lanzetta v. NewSearch
-
criminal penalties have, in the same fashion, judicially been denied the force of criminal sanctions. United States v. CardiffSearch
-
Here, there were more than commands simply vague or even contradictory. There was active misleading. Cf. Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
even if a proper explanation is made of what the inquiry wants of him and the basis on which it is wanted. See Flaxer v. UnitedSearch
-
Together with No. 463, Morgan v. OhioSearch
-
Quinn v. UnitedSearch
-
a variation of the former theme, put into sharper focus by the State Supreme Court's theory of decision. See Dewey v. DesSearch
-
Accordingly, the applicability of Twining v. NewSearch
-
The State Supreme Court relied on Sinclair v. UnitedSearch
-
state court judgment, we cannot affirm it here by postulating some ground of state law not relied on below. Murdock v. MemphisSearch
-
Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. StateSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Raley v. OhioSearch
-
of Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
and Watkins v. UnitedSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. NelsonSearch
-
NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
Watkins v. UnitedSearch
-
See Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
See Manhattan Life Ins. Co. of New York v. CohenSearch
-
of Congress. Quinn v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
-
Lanzetta v. NewSearch
-
Cf. Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
See Flaxer v. UnitedSearch
-
Morgan v. OhioSearch
-
See Dewey v. DesSearch
-
of Twining v. NewSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial