24 Puerto Rico opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Puerto Rico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gromer v. Standard Dredging Co.green2 sentences1961Gromer v. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U.S. 362 , 32 S. Ct. 499 , 56 L.Ed. 801 . 1961Gromer v. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U.S. 362 , 32 S. Ct. 499 , 56 L.Ed. 801 . | 1 | 2 |
Mora v. Mejiasgreen2 sentences1958Cf. Mora v. Mejías, 206 F.2d 377, 382 (C.A. 1, 1953) ; Stagg, Mather and Hough v. Descartes, 244 F.2d 578, 583 (C.A. 1, 1957). 1954In Mora v. Mejías, 206 F.2d 377 (C.A. 1, 1953), Chief Judge Magruder, speaking for the court, said at p. 382 that “...the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico contains a due process clause, which will be authoritatively interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico as a matter of local law ” (Italics ours). | 1 | 2 |
School Committee v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discriminationgreen1 sentence2011Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 423 Mass. 7, 15 (Í996) (“In administrative proceedings, hearsay evidence can be received and may constitute substantial evidence if it contains sufficient indicia of reliability and probative value”); State v. Wright, 456 N.W.2d 661, 665 (Iowa 1990); In re Kennedy, 472 A.2d 1317,1329 (Del. 1984) (“The Due Process clause has never been read to mean that the admission of hearsay evidence in an administrative type proceeding is a violation of that clause, and we decline to accept that reading today”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Kennedygreen1 sentence2011Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 423 Mass. 7, 15 (Í996) (“In administrative proceedings, hearsay evidence can be received and may constitute substantial evidence if it contains sufficient indicia of reliability and probative value”); State v. Wright, 456 N.W.2d 661, 665 (Iowa 1990); In re Kennedy, 472 A.2d 1317,1329 (Del. 1984) (“The Due Process clause has never been read to mean that the admission of hearsay evidence in an administrative type proceeding is a violation of that clause, and we decline to accept that reading today”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrightgreen1 sentence2011Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 423 Mass. 7, 15 (Í996) (“In administrative proceedings, hearsay evidence can be received and may constitute substantial evidence if it contains sufficient indicia of reliability and probative value”); State v. Wright, 456 N.W.2d 661, 665 (Iowa 1990); In re Kennedy, 472 A.2d 1317,1329 (Del. 1984) (“The Due Process clause has never been read to mean that the admission of hearsay evidence in an administrative type proceeding is a violation of that clause, and we decline to accept that reading today”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Lovascogreen1 sentence1993Sobre este particular, el Tribunal Supremo federal, en United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1982), señaló lo siguiente: Although delay prior to arrest or indictment may give rise to a due process claim under the Fifth Amendment, see United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 788-789 (1977), or to a claim under any aplicable statutes of limitations, no Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial arises until charges are pending. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. MacDonaldgreen1 sentence1993Sobre este particular, el Tribunal Supremo federal, en United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1982), señaló lo siguiente: Although delay prior to arrest or indictment may give rise to a due process claim under the Fifth Amendment, see United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 788-789 (1977), or to a claim under any aplicable statutes of limitations, no Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial arises until charges are pending. | 1 | 1 |
National Labor Relations Board v. MacKay Radio & Telegraph Co.green1 sentence1967Even before the adoption of the provision contained in Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board on the substitution of examiners after the hearing is held, it was determined that said substitution did “not injure the provisions of the due process in violation of the Federal Constitution or of the National Labor Relations Act.” Nevertheless, after said provision on substitution was adopted, the power to substitute the examiner who heard the evidence, when he is unavailable, has been limited to those situations “where the credibility evaluation is such that it can be said that it is not | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Santoregreen1 sentence1965See United States v. Santore, supra; United States v. Gregory, 309 F.2d 536 (1962). | 1 | 1 |
Stagg, Mather & Hough v. Sol Luis Descartes, Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Ricogreen1 sentence1958Cf. Mora v. Mejías, 206 F.2d 377, 382 (C.A. 1, 1953) ; Stagg, Mather and Hough v. Descartes, 244 F.2d 578, 583 (C.A. 1, 1957). | 1 | 1 |
Buscaglia v. Ballestergreen1 sentence1957See Ballester Hermanos v. Tax Court, 66 P.R.R. 531 , 536, footnote 3, reversed on other grounds in 162 F. 2d 805 (C. | 1 | 1 |
Ashcraft v. Tennesseegreen1 sentence1954Compare Stein v. New York, supra, pp. 162-3, footnote 5, and People v. Rodríguez, 65 P.R.R. 498 , with Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 327 U.S. 274 ; see Morgan, supra, Vol. II, 245, 249, Dession, etc., Drug-Induced Revelation and Criminal Investigation, 62 Yale L.J. 315 , 336. | 1 | 1 |
Rochin v. Californiagreen1 sentence1954See Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173 , footnote 6; Batalla v. District Court, supra; 60 Yale L. | 1 | 1 |
| Heiner v. Donnangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sancho v. Humacao Shipping Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| San Juan Trading Co. v. Sanchogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Buscaglia v. Bowiegreen | 1 | 1 |
| St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Puerto Rico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hawaii v. Mankichi
green
2 sentences1961Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 ; Balzac v. Puerto Rico, supra. It would be absurd to contend that, after the enactment of Act 600, the Vth Amendment requires a trial by jury in the criminal cases prosecuted in Puerto Rican courts and also an unanimous verdict. 1958Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 ; Balzac v. Puerto Rico, supra. It would be absurd to contend that, after the enactment of Act 600, the Vth Amendment requires a trial by jury in the criminal cases prosecuted in Puerto Rican courts and also an unanimous verdict. | 2 | 1958–1961 |
Balzac v. Porto Rico
green
2 sentences1961Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 ; Balzac v. Puerto Rico, supra. It would be absurd to contend that, after the enactment of Act 600, the Vth Amendment requires a trial by jury in the criminal cases prosecuted in Puerto Rican courts and also an unanimous verdict. 1958Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 ; Balzac v. Puerto Rico, supra. It would be absurd to contend that, after the enactment of Act 600, the Vth Amendment requires a trial by jury in the criminal cases prosecuted in Puerto Rican courts and also an unanimous verdict. | 2 | 1958–1961 |
Madden v. Kentucky Ex Rel. Commissioner
green
2 sentences1954The burden is on the one attacking the legislative enactment to negative every conceivable basis which might support it.’ Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 88 ; Rivera v. Buscaglia, 146 F.(2) 461, 465 (C.C.A. 1st., 1944). 1948The burden is on the one attacking the legislative enactment to negative every conceivable basis which might support it.” Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83, 88 ; Rivera v. Buscaglia, 146 F. (2) 461, 465 (C.C.A. 1st, 1944). | 2 | 1948–1954 |
Henry A. Knott Company v. The Chesapeake And Potomac Telephone Company Of West Virginia
green
1 sentence2013Co., 772 F.2d 78 , 85 (4to Cir. 1985) (“A hearing de novo before a new successor master or before the district court must be conducted if the case requires the trier of fact to make credibility determinations concerning the testimony of witnesses; otherwise the parties [’] right to a full due process hearing would be severely undercut”). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Solesbee v. Balkcom
green
1 sentence1996Una década antes, otro ilustre jurista, el Juez Asociado Félix Frankfurter señaló en Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 US 9 (1950) que: "It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the due process clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbeded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to deemed fundamentals to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Morgan v. United States
green
1 sentence1967Even before the adoption of the provision contained in Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board on the substitution of examiners after the hearing is held, it was determined that said substitution did “not injure the provisions of the due process in violation of the Federal Constitution or of the National Labor Relations Act.” Nevertheless, after said provision on substitution was adopted, the power to substitute the examiner who heard the evidence, when he is unavailable, has been limited to those situations “where the credibility evaluation is such that it can be said that it is not | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Yee Hem v. United States
green
1 sentence1965This evidentiary function of' the fact of the possession in these Statutes is what has ■ prompted the courts, as we shall forthwith see, to resort to fictions' and to ■ distinctions, at times subtle, in order to determine whether or not the presumptions established operate in particular cases.- In Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U.S. 178 (1925), the Federal Supreme Court, construing an opium provision which contained a similar presumption, upheld its validity,. warning that in order that a statutory presumption may be constitutionally valid — in the light of the due process clause and of the pri | 1 | 1965–1965 |
United States v. William P. Gregory and Albert Sumpter
green
1 sentence1965See United States v. Santore, supra; United States v. Gregory, 309 F.2d 536 (1962). | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Orient Insurance v. Daggs
green
1 sentence1961Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648 (1895); Orient Insurance Company v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557 (1869); Nutting v. Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 553 (1902); Carroll v. Greenwich Insurance Co., 199 U.S. 401 (1905) ; Northwestern Life Ins. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Nutting v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence1961Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648 (1895); Orient Insurance Company v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557 (1869); Nutting v. Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 553 (1902); Carroll v. Greenwich Insurance Co., 199 U.S. 401 (1905) ; Northwestern Life Ins. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Hooper v. California
green
1 sentence1961Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648 (1895); Orient Insurance Company v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557 (1869); Nutting v. Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 553 (1902); Carroll v. Greenwich Insurance Co., 199 U.S. 401 (1905) ; Northwestern Life Ins. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co. of NY
green
1 sentence1961Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648 (1895); Orient Insurance Company v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557 (1869); Nutting v. Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 553 (1902); Carroll v. Greenwich Insurance Co., 199 U.S. 401 (1905) ; Northwestern Life Ins. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Leyra v. Denno
green
2 sentences1954“The use in a state criminal trial of a defendant’s confession obtained by coercion — whether physical or mental —is forbidden by [the due process clause of] the Fourteenth Amendment.” Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556 , 98 L. ed. 631, 632-3, and cases cited in footnote 3; Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49 , and cases cited in footnote 3; Stein v. New York, supra, and cases cited; Batalla v. District Court, 74 P.R.R. 266 , 283-4, footnotes 4 and 5, and cases cited therein. 6 In this case the defendant contends that Exhibit 48 of the People was improperly admitted in evidence because it was a confessio 1954In Leyra v. Denno, supra, 98 L. ed. at 633, footnote 3, the opinion states: “Some members of the Court reach this conclusion [that coerced confessions cannot be admitted in evidence in state criminal trials] because of their belief that the Fourteenth Amendment makqs applicable to the states the Fifth Amendment’s ban against compulsory self-incrimination.” However, the majority of the Supreme Court are of a contrary view: They have held that only the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies in such cases. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Watts v. Indiana
green
1 sentence1954“The use in a state criminal trial of a defendant’s confession obtained by coercion — whether physical or mental —is forbidden by [the due process clause of] the Fourteenth Amendment.” Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556 , 98 L. ed. 631, 632-3, and cases cited in footnote 3; Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49 , and cases cited in footnote 3; Stein v. New York, supra, and cases cited; Batalla v. District Court, 74 P.R.R. 266 , 283-4, footnotes 4 and 5, and cases cited therein. 6 In this case the defendant contends that Exhibit 48 of the People was improperly admitted in evidence because it was a confessio | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Stein v. New York
red
1 sentence1954“The use in a state criminal trial of a defendant’s confession obtained by coercion — whether physical or mental —is forbidden by [the due process clause of] the Fourteenth Amendment.” Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556 , 98 L. ed. 631, 632-3, and cases cited in footnote 3; Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49 , and cases cited in footnote 3; Stein v. New York, supra, and cases cited; Batalla v. District Court, 74 P.R.R. 266 , 283-4, footnotes 4 and 5, and cases cited therein. 6 In this case the defendant contends that Exhibit 48 of the People was improperly admitted in evidence because it was a confessio | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Vidal v. Fernandez
green
1 sentence1954The validity of this Act under the due process clause as applied to the operator of a particular mill was unsuccessfully challenged in Vidal v. Fernández, 104 F.2d 606 (C.A. 1, 1939) cert. denied, 308 U.S. 602 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Frazie v. Orleans Dredging Co.
neutral
1 sentence1954The validity of this Act under the due process clause as applied to the operator of a particular mill was unsuccessfully challenged in Vidal v. Fernández, 104 F.2d 606 (C.A. 1, 1939) cert. denied, 308 U.S. 602 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
| Brown v. Walker green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Twining v. New Jersey red | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| United States v. Murdock green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Palko v. Connecticut red | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Milliken v. Meyer green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Adamson v. California green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Morton Salt Co. v. City of South Hutchinson green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Department of Revenue green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Lanzetta v. New Jersey green | 1 | 1950–1950 |
| Winters v. New York green | 1 | 1950–1950 |
| Blake v. McClung green | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| United States v. Darby green | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish green | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| Southern Pacific Co. v. Kentucky green | 1 | 1946–1946 |
| Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky green | 1 | 1946–1946 |
| Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota green | 1 | 1946–1946 |
| People of Puerto Rico v. Eastern Sugar Associates green | 1 | 1946–1946 |
| Stockdale v. Insurance Companies green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.