Hudgins v. California, 386 U.S. 265 (1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Hudgins v. California, 386 U.S. 265 (1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Turrentine (arizctapp, 1986-05-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Turrentine
Ariz. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Cotter, 63 Cal.2d 386 , 46 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 (1965), vac. in part sub nom Cotter v. California, 386 U.S. 274 , 87 S.Ct. 1035 , 18 L.Ed.2d 43 (1967); State v. Simonson, 100 N.M. 297 , 669 P.2d 1092 (1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Hinds
Cal. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
(People v. Jacobson, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 330-331; see also People v. Cotter (1965) 63 Cal.2d 386 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 ] [vacated on another ground in Cotter v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 274 ( 18 L.Ed.2d 43 , 87 S.Ct. 1035 )], applying the exception where the defendant *240 gave seven statements, four of which were admissible, and three of which were not.) Appellant questions whether the exception has any validity as applied to involuntary confessions or confessions obtained in violation of Miranda .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Terry (2×)
Cal. · 1970 · signal: see also · confidence low
(See Graham, What Is "Custodial Interrogation?": California's Anticipatory Application of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 14 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 59, 105.) Asking an arrestee his name and address is simply making a "justifiable type of routine" inquiry. ( People v. Jaquish, 244 Cal. App.2d 444, 449 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 123 ] [overruled on another issue in People v. Rivers, 66 Cal.2d 1000, 1005 ( 59 Cal. Rptr. 851 , 429 P.2d 171 )]; see also People v. Cotter, 63 Cal.2d 386, 393 [ 46 Cal. Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 ], vacated, 386 U.S. 274 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 43 , 87 S.Ct. 1035 ]; People v. Pike, 239 Cal. App.2d 237, 242…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hudgins
v.
California
37, Misc.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 13, 1967.
386 U.S. 265
Stewart.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18.

Mr. Justice Stewart is of the opinion that certiorari should be denied because the petition was not timely filed.