Citation network
United States Vs. Raines
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 29, 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
-
U.S. 17 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. RainesSearch
-
U.S. 17 (1960) United States v. RainesSearch
-
not presented by the facts before it. Pp. 362 U. S. 22 -24. (d) To the extent that United States v. ReeseSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
authority in the State that might possibly revise their actions. P. 362 U. S. 25 . (c) Insofar as Barney v. NewSearch
-
Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S.S. Co. v. CommissionersSearch
-
as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional. United States v. WurzbachSearch
-
Heald v. DistrictSearch
-
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. JacksonSearch
-
Hatch v. ReardonSearch
-
U. S. 152 , 204 U. S. 160 -161. Cf. Voeller v. NeilstonSearch
-
Carmichael v. SouthernSearch
-
Virginian R. Co. v. SystemSearch
-
Blackmer v. UnitedSearch
-
Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. EmmersonSearch
-
Jeffrey Mfg. Co. v. BlaggSearch
-
Tyler v. JudgesSearch
-
Ashwander v. TennesseeSearch
-
Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288 , 297 U. S. 347 -348 (concurring opinion). In Barrows v. JacksonSearch
-
and where he has no effective way to preserve them himself, the Court may consider those rights as before it. NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
of these rules would itself have an inhibitory effect on freedom of speech, they may not be applied. See Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
in which the statute no longer gave an intelligible warning of the conduct it prohibited. See United States v. ReeseSearch
-
Winters v. NewSearch
-
the basis of fortuitous circumstances, only in a fraction of the cases it was originally designed to cover. See Butts v. MerchantsSearch
-
state court as having an otherwise valid provision or application inextricably tied up with an invalid one, see Dorchy v. KansasSearch
-
to turn on the exception stated, or is perfectly justified by it. The District Court relied primarily on United States v. ReeseSearch
-
It makes no difference that the discrimination in question, if state action, is also violative of state law. Snowden v. HughesSearch
-
proposition that every state official, high and low, is bound by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. See Cooper v. AaronSearch
-
the State that might possibly revise their actions. The appellees can draw no support from the expressions in Barney v. NewSearch
-
Snowden v. HughesSearch
-
U. S. 141 , 310 U. S. 147 , and of contrary authority. See Raymond v. ChicagoSearch
-
Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. LosSearch
-
Iowa-Des Moines Nat. Bank v. BennettSearch
-
Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 325 U. S. 91 , 325 U. S. 107 -113, 325 U. S. 116 . Cf. United States v. ClassicSearch
-
U. S. 299 , 313 U. S. 326 . It was said of Barney's doctrine in Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. LosSearch
-
the United States to be the guardian of that public interest in a suit for injunctive relief. See United Steelworkers v. UnitedSearch
-
Holmes, J., in Blodgett v. HoldenSearch
-
Cf. Mountain Timber Co. v. WashingtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial