green
Positive treatment
3.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Whack v. State
(2×)
See Rogers v. United States, 325 F.2d 485, 487 (10th Cir.1963), vacated on other grounds and remanded for resentencing per curiam, 378 U.S. 549 , 84 S.Ct. 1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1964); Gonzalez v. United States, 224 F.2d 431, 435 (1st Cir.1955).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Allen, John Brett
(2×)
See Rogers v. United States, 325 F.2d 485 (10th Cir. 1963), vacated and remanded for resentencing, 378 U.S. 549 , 84 S.Ct. 1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1964); Gonzalez v. United States, 224 F.2d 431 (1st Cir. 1955).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. McGill
(2×)
See State v. Owen, 94 Ariz. 404 , 385 P.2d 700 (1963) reversed on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct. 1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Rivens
See, e.g., McNerlin v. Denno, 378 U.S. 575 , 12 L.Ed. 2d 1041 , 84 S.Ct. 1933 (1964) (rule in Jackson v. Denno applied retroactively to a pending case and the case was remanded for reconsideration in light of Jackson); Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 171 , 84 S.Ct. 229 (1963) (Mapp exclusionary rule applied retroactively to a pending case.) The rationale for applying a decision to other cases pending on appeal appears to be the realization that the pending case could just as easily have been the case in which the new rule was announced. *392 In making the determination as to ret…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Perry
(2×)
See also, State v. Owen, 94 Ariz. 404 , 385 P.2d 700 (1963), vacated on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct. 1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kelly
See also McNerlin v. Denno, 378 U.S. 575 , 84 S.Ct. 1933 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1964); Linkletter, supra, 85 S.Ct. 1743 n.20; Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), [invalidating the conviction of one defendant based on a confession of a codefendant] was applied retroactively by the Supreme Court in Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 , 88 S.Ct. 1921 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1968); Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 , 88 S.Ct. 254 , 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1967), [right to counsel at sentencing] was applied retroactively by the Supreme Court in McConnell v. Rhay, 393 U.S. 2 , 89 S.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Barnes v. State
(2×)
See also Etchieson v. Texas, 84 S.Ct. 1932 , wherein the judgment of this Court in Etchieson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 690 , was vacated by a per curiam opinion citing Aguilar v. Texas, supra. On Remand from United States Supreme Court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ETCHIESON
v.
TEXAS.
v.
TEXAS.
1050 M.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 22, 1964.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 8 opinions | Published
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS.
Clyde W. Woody for petitioner.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas for consideration in light of Aguilar v. Texas, ante, p. 108.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE STEWART dissent for the reasons assigned in the dissenting opinion in Aguilar v. Texas.
[*590]