Boddie Vs. Connecticut - Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Decided on: Mar-02-1971

Court: US Supreme Court

LAW: Section 52-259, Constitution, the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution

PERSON: Boddie, STEWART, BLACKMUN, DOUGLAS, J., Term, Skinner, Hovey v. Elliott, Justice Jackson, Mullane, Armstrong, Stat, Goldberg v. Kelly, Schroeder v. New York, Covey, Anderson Nat, Luckett, Morgan, Coe, Armour Fertilizer Works, Londoner, Schmidt, Kelly, Bowles v. Willingham, McElroy, Fahey v. Mallonee, Bowles, Schneider, Cantwell, Bates, Sherbert, Verner, Sobel, Brown v. Chastain, Cohen, Roberts, LaVallee, Williams, Draper v. Washington, Douglas, Burns, Smith, Bennett, 261 U. S. 525, Bryan, Ferguson, 362 U. S. 199, Palko, Lochner, McLaughlin, Affluence, BRENNAN, Goldberg, Ante, Coppedge, Lane v. Brown, Rinaldi, Gardner, Maynard v. Hill

GPE: Connecticut, U.S., the State of, Loving, Virginia, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Baldwin, Windsor, Arkansas, Griffin, Conn., United States, Denver, Yakus, Little Rock, Oklahoma City, California, Ohio, New York, Kansas, Louisville, Wisconsin, Constantineau, West Virginia, Florida, Illinois, Negroes, Great Britain, Oregon, States, the United States

CARDINAL: 401, 27, 968, 1, 8-9, 9, three, 28, 972, 395, 399, 375, more than one, two, 223, 3, 5, 6, 8, one, 52-261, 2, 338, At least one, 296, 416, 16, 716, Two

DATE: 1971, December 8, 1969, November 17, 1970, March 2, 1971, daily, 2281, July 16, 1968, 1969, 1970, years, 1967, 1942, 1923, a hundred years, 1876, 1864, 1897, the years, 1950, 1909, 1965, 1956, 1968, 1962, 1963, 1944, 1941, 1938, 1934, 1930, 1915, 1908, 1961, 1947, 1939, 1940, 1960, 58 Misc.2d 1045, 1056, 87, 1012, 1014, 1949, more than a decade, today, 1958, 1959, 1966, 1888

ORG: U.S. Supreme Court, Syllabus, State, J., Court, BURGER, C.J., WHITE, BLACK, the Federal District Court, the Connecticut General Statutes, the supreme court, the Superior Court, U.S. 974, Meyer, Baldwin v. Hale, Hovey v. Elliott, Hammond Packing Co., Covey, Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., Humboldt Placer Mining Co., Mullane v., Bank, Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, Illinois Central R. Co., Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co., Hill, Louisville & Nashville R. Co., Goldberg v. Kelly, Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., Jeffreys v. Jeffreys, Rives, Beneficial Loan Corp., District Court of Iowa, supreme court, the Equal Protection Clause, Children's Hospital, Skrupa,, Thompson, HARLAN, Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, Eskridge, Washington State Board of Prison Terms & Paroles, Smith v. Bennett, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, Parliament, the Legislature of the Territory of, the State of Connecticut, the State or Federal Government

PERCENT: 401 U. S. 374, 401 U. S. 386, 316 U. S. 535, 93 U. S. 274, 395 U. S. 337, 367 U. S. 886, 339 U. S. 594, 310 U. S., 374 U. S. 398, 389 U. S. 40, 400 U. S. 433, 367 U. S. 895

QUANTITY: 286 F.Supp

MONEY: 60, forty-five dollars, An additional $15, as much as $40 or, 50

NORP: American, imprimatur, Lochner, Catholics, Protestants

ORDINAL: first

PRODUCT: 397 U. S. 254

WORK_OF_ART: The Due Process Clause, the Due Process Clause