green
Positive treatment
2.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Haj-Hamed v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 06ap-351 (5-24-2007)
See, generally, Estes v. Texas (1965), 381 U.S. 532 , 542 , 85 S.Ct. 1628 , rehearing denied, 382 U.S. 875 , 86 S.Ct. 18 (stating that "[i]t is true that in most cases involving claims of due process violations we require a showing of identifiable prejudice to the accused.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Frederick
See Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 540 , 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1631 , 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 549 (1965), rehearing denied, 382 U.S. 875 , 86 S.Ct. 18 , 15 L.Ed.2d 118 (1965); cf. United States v. Wolfe, 8 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 250 , 24 C.M.R. 57, 60 (1957). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Waugh, 07ap-619 (5-6-2008)
W. , Medina App. No. 06CA0033-M, 2006-Ohio-5635 , at ¶ 9 (stating that "[t]o demonstrate a reversible denial of due process, as with any alleged error on appeal, an appellant typically must make a showing of identifiable prejudice"); see, also, Estes v. Texas (1965), 381 U.S. 532 , 542-543 , 85 S.Ct. 1628 , rehearing denied, 382 U.S. 875 , 86 S.Ct. 18 (acknowledging that in most cases involving claims of due process violations a showing of identifiable prejudice to the accused is required). {¶ 26} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we hold that the trial court's denial of defendan…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Abdullah, 07ap-427 (12-27-2007)
Defendant's claims of prejudice and a due process violation are therefore speculative. {¶ 22} "To demonstrate a reversible denial of due process, as with any alleged error on appeal, an appellant typically must make a showing of identifiable prejudice." In re C.W. , Medina App. No. 06CA0033-M, 2006-Ohio-5635 , at ¶ 9; see, also, Estes v. Texas (1965), 381 U.S. 532 , 542-543 , 85 S.Ct. 1628 , rehearing denied, 382 U.S. 875 , 86 S.Ct. 18 (stating that, although at times a procedure employed by the state may involve such a probability that prejudice will result such that it is deemed inherently…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Allen
See also Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 539 , 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1631 , 14 L.Ed. 2d 543, 548 , reh. denied, 382 U.S. 875 , 86 S.Ct. 18 , 15 L.Ed. 2d 118 (1965), which subordinated the right of the press "to the maintenance of absolute fairness in the judicial process." We turn then to the question of whether the public has a right to be present during that part of courtroom proceedings which the defendant, in order to safeguard his Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury, seeks to have held in camera.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gottesman
v.
General Motors Corp.
v.
General Motors Corp.
No. 120.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 11, 1965.
382 U.S. 875
Consideration, Harlan, Motion, Took.
Published
379 U. S. 882, 940. Motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.