Us Supreme Court Court October 1972 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
California Vs. Krivda
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-24-1972
California v. Krivda - 409 U.S. 33 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court California v. Krivda, 409 U.S. 33 (1972) California v. Krivda No. 71-651 Argued October 10, 1972 Decided October 24, 1972 409 U.S. 33 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus It not being clear whether the judgment of the California Supreme Court affirming the lower court is based on federal or state constitutional grounds, or both, and whether this Court has jurisdiction on review, that judgment is vacated and the case remanded. 5 Cal. 3d 357, 486 P. 2d 1262, vacated and remanded. Page 409 U. S. 34 PER CURIAM. On the basis of evidence obtained in a police search of respondents' trash, respondents were charged with possession of marihuana in violation of 11530 of the California Health & Safety Code. The Supreme Court of California affirmed the superior court's judgment of dismissal and order suppressing the evidence on the grounds that, under the circumstances of this case, respondents "had a rea...
Robinson Vs. Hanrahan
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-24-1972
Robinson v. Hanrahan - 409 U.S. 38 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38 (1972) Robinson v. Hanrahan No. 71-6918 Decided October 24, 1972 409 U.S. 38 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Notwithstanding its knowledge that appellant was in the Cook County jail awaiting trial, the State of Illinois mailed notice of automobile forfeiture proceedings to appellant at his home, which he did not receive until his release, when he learned that the car had been forfeited. The circuit court rejected appellant's motion for rehearing. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Held: The procedure followed here did not comport with due process requirements, as the State made no effort to provide appellant with notice "reasonably calculated" to apprise him of the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings. 52 Ill.2d 37, 284 N.E.2d 646, reversed and remanded. PER CURIAM. On June 16, 1970, appellant was arrested on a charge of armed robbery and, immediately the...
Westermann Vs. Nelson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-20-1972
Westermann v. Nelson - 409 U.S. 1236 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Westermann v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 1236 (1972) Westermann v. Nelson No. A-412 Decided October 20, 1972 409 U.S. 1236 ON MOTION FOR INJUNCTION Syllabus The motion for injunction pending appeal of candidates who failed to secure ballot placement for the November 7, 1972, election in Arizona is denied because orderly election processes would likely be disrupted by granting so tardy an application. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, Circuit Justice. Petitioners are candidates of the American Independent Party who complain of their inability to get on the ballot in Arizona for the November 7, 1972, election. They brought suit in the District Court, but their complaint was dismissed. They desire to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but were denied a preliminary injunction by a judge of that court. They now apply to me as Circuit Justice. The complaint may have merit. But the time element is now short, and the ponderous Arizona election...
Communist Party of Indiana Vs. Whitcomb
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-06-1972
Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb - 409 U.S. 1235 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 409 U.S. 1235 (1972) Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb No. A-378 Decided October 6, 1972 409 U.S. 1235 ON APPLICATION FOR STAY Syllabus Motion denominated an application for stay but intended to secure a partial summary reversal of the District Court's order denied, since the applicants' right to such relief is not indisputably clear. MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice. Applicants have filed a motion denominated an "Application for Stay of Order of United States District Court of the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division," which order was entered following a hearing on their complaint alleging that the oath required by Indiana law in order for a party to be placed on the ballot was unconstitutional. An examination of the application, however, shows that applicants do not seek a stay of that order, but instead a partial summary reversal o...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›