Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Reina Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 19, 1960

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

35 entries 2 linked 33 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Sanchez US Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1950
  2. United States Vs. Doremus US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1919
  3. Reina v. United
    Search
  4. States - 364 U.S. 507 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court Reina v. United
    Search
  5. States, 364 U.S. 507 (1960) Reina v. United
    Search
  6. immunity because, Page 364 U. S. 510 assuming only federal immunity is granted, they held that United States v. Murdock
    Search
  7. U.S. at 347 U. S. 181 . In Ullmann v. United
    Search
  8. and in Adams v. Maryland
    Search
  9. He insists, however, that the congressional authority to enact narcotics laws -- rested on the Commerce Clause, Brolan v. United
    Search
  10. Yee Hem v. United
    Search
  11. or the taxing power, United States v. Doremus
    Search
  12. Alston v. United
    Search
  13. Nigro v. United
    Search
  14. But the petitioner misconceives the reach of the principle applied in Ullmann and Adams v. Maryland
    Search
  15. and distinctions based upon the particular granted power concerned have no support in the Constitution. See Brown v. Walker
    Search
  16. States have traditionally regulated the traffic in narcotics, although that fact has troubled one court. See Tedesco v. United
    Search
  17. There is indeed weighty authority for that proposition. United States v. Romero
    Search
  18. Brown v. Walker
    Search
  19. quo for further exposing himself to personal disgrace or opprobrium. That reason would not be tenable under Brown v. Walker
    Search
  20. testify, the statute grants him immunity fully coextensive with the constitutional privilege. Some language in Brown v. Walker
    Search
  21. United States v. Reina
    Search
  22. to bring into issue any ground upon which the length of the sentence may open the decision to attack. Cf. Boynton v. Virginia
    Search
  23. the District Court's power in the summary proceedings it conducted in this case. In my dissenting opinion in Green v. United
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court Reina v. United
    Search
  25. In Ullmann v. United
    Search
  26. Adams v. Maryland
    Search
  27. the Commerce Clause, Brolan v. United
    Search
  28. Ullmann and Adams v. Maryland
    Search
  29. the Constitution. See Brown v. Walker
    Search
  30. See Tedesco v. United
    Search
  31. United States v. Romero
    Search
  32. Brown v. Walker
    Search
  33. Cf. Boynton v. Virginia
    Search
  34. Green v. United
    Search
  35. United States v. Murdock
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial