ATCHLEY

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

• Melvee Tucker v. State, 417 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
  …(1879) (conviction for murder in third degree cannot stand when not prosecuted within period fixed by statute). For cases in other jurisdictions see Chaifetz v. United States, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 349, 288 F. 2d 133 (1960), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 209, 81 S.Ct. 1051, 6 L.Ed.2d 233 (1961) (rule adopted as response to efforts of zealous prosecutors to avoid statute of limitations against lesser offenses); State v. Fogel, 16 Ariz.App. 246, 492 P. 2d 742 (Ariz.App.1972) (statute of limitations limits state’s power…
• Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139 (U.S. 1962)
  …erprise Irrigation District v. Farmers Mutual Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, and would warrant dismissing the writ as improvidently granted, Benz v. New York State Thruway Authority, 369 U. S. 147; Atchley v. California, 366 U. S. 207, the opinion undertakes, as Mr. Justice Brennan characterizes it, a “gratuitous exposition” upon those more difficult constitutional problems originally thought presented for decision. These expressions of dicta are in a form which can only lead to…
• Procunier v. Atchley, 400 U.S. 446 (U.S. 1971)
  …udgment is reversed. Mr. Justice Black concurs in the judgment and substantially all of the opinion. No charges had been filed against the respondent at the time of these conversations. Cf. Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201. 362 U. S. 987. 366 U. S. 207. 412 F. 2d 230. 397 U. S. 905. Congress in 1966 amended 28 U. S. C. § 2254 (see 1964 ed., Supp. V), so as substantially to codify most of the habeas corpus criteria set out in Townsend v. Sain.…