green
Positive treatment
4.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "see"
Delorme v. State
(6×)
See People v. Radich, 26 N.Y.2d 114 , 308 N.Y.S.2d 846 , 257 N.E.2d 30 (1970), affirmed, Radich v. New York, 401 U.S. 531 , 91 S.Ct. 1217 , 28 L.Ed.2d 287 (1971); People v. Cowgill, 274 Cal.App.2d Supp. 923 , 78 Cal.Rptr. 853 (1969), appeal dismissed, Cowgill v. California, 396 U.S. 371 , 90 S.Ct. 613 , 24 L.Ed.2d 590 (1970); and State v. Waterman, 190 N.W.2d 809 (Iowa, 1971).
examined
Cited "see"
Thoms v. Smith
(12×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See the dissents of Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, White and Fortas in Street , and see People v. Radich, 26 N. Y.2d 114, 308 N.Y.S.2d 846 , 257 N.E.2d 30 (Ct.App.1970) aff’d per curiam by an equally divided court, 401 U.S. 531 , 91 S.Ct. 1217 , 28 L.Ed.2d 287 (1971); Sutherland v. DeWulf, 323 F.Supp. 740 (S.D.Ill.N.D.1971); State of Iowa v. Waterman, 190 N.W.2d 809 (Sup.Ct.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States Ex Rel. Radich v. Criminal Ct. of NY
(6×)
See also, Brief for Appellant in Radich v. New York, 401 U.S. 531 , 91 S.Ct. 1217 , 28 L.Ed.2d 287 (1971), at 3-4. 21 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RADICH
v.
NEW YORK.
v.
NEW YORK.
169.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 17, 1971.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 26 opinions | Published
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
Richard G. Green argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Shirley Fingerhood and Melvin L. Wulf.
Michael R. Juviler argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Frank S. Hogan and William C. Donnino.
John B. Hightower et al. filed a brief as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Maria L. Marcus, Assistant Attorney General, filed a brief for the Attorney General of New York as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.