Branigin Et Al. v. Duddleston Et Al., 391 U.S. 364 (1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Branigin Et Al. v. Duddleston Et Al., 391 U.S. 364 (1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matthews v. Parker
6th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
Therefore, "requiring a defendant to offer evidence of such probative force that otherwise he would be entitled as a matter of law to an acquittal ... violated due process.” Id. (citing In re Winship, 391 U.S. at 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068 .) .
discussed Cited "see" Mallory v. State of Ohio (2×)
S.D. Ohio · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Grills v. Branigin, 284 F.Supp. 176, 180 (S.D.Ind.), aff'd, 391 U.S. 364 , 88 S.Ct. 1666 , 20 L.Ed.2d 641 (1968). 5.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Brady v. New Jersey Redistricting Commission (4×)
N.J. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 , 52 S.Ct. 397 , 76 L.Ed. 795 (1932) (finding Congressional-redistricting plan invalid because it had not become law in absence of legislature's override of governor's veto); Carstens v. Lamm, 543 F. Supp. 68 (D.Colo. 1982) (finding that in creating Congressional districts, court should afford no preference to plan approved by legislature but vetoed by governor); see also Grills v. Branigin, 284 F. Supp. 176 (S.D.Ind.) (holding that in absence of legislative or judicial power granted under state constitution, election board could not create Congressional…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roger D. Branigin
v.
Dorothy S. Duddleston
1252.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 14, 1968.
391 U.S. 364
John J. Dillon, Attorney General of Indiana, and Charles S. White for appellants in No. 1252. Marshall F. Kiser for appellant in No. 1263., Leslie Duvall and William H. Sparrenberger for appel-lees in both cases.
Harlan, Grills, Court'S.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Harlan, for reasons contained in his memorandum of March 4, 1968 (390 U. S. 932, sub nom. Branigin v. Grills), in which he acquiesced in the denial of stays of enforcement of the District Court’s judgment, also acquiesces in the Court’s affirmance of that judgment.