DEARHART
v.
VIRGINIA
DEARHART
VIRGINIA
374 U.S. 498
Supreme Court of the United States (1963)
Caution
Also reported at: 10 L. Ed. 2d 1044 · 83 S. Ct. 1876 · SCDB 1962-156 · 1963 U.S. LEXIS 998
Cited by 16 cases
Per_curiam
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 is remanded for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U. S., at 358,.360.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baines v. City OF Danville, 337 F.2d 579 (4th Cir. 1964)…rs rely which support their position here. We do find support for our present conclusion, however, in Henderson v. Trailway Bus Company, E.D.Va., 194 F.Supp. 423 (3-Judge Court case) affirmed sub nom. Robinson v. Hunter, 374 U.S. 488, 83 S.Ct. 1875, 10 L.Ed.2d 1044, in which the court refused to enjoin a state court prosecution of Negro “sit in” demonstrators as trespassers. Though we hold that § 2283, except when the United States is a party, applied to an attempt to enjoin then pending proceedings in a stat…
-
Hernandez v. United States, 353 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1965)…a “search.” 38 Words & Phrases 401-02 (Perm. 2d), 123-26 (1965 P.P.) Technical trespass is not required. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961). See also Regalado v. California, 374 U.S. 497, 83 S.Ct. 1875, 10 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1963); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 454 (1948) But even if it were, it occurred here. “A trespass to a chattel may be committed by intentionally * * * using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.” Restatement 2d,…
-
Smayda v. United States, 352 F.2d 251 (9th Cir. 1965)…. Technical trespass is clearly not required. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. at 511, 512, 81 S.Ct. 679. See also McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 69 S.Ct. 191, 93 D.Ed. 153 (1948); Regalado v. California, 374 U.S. 497, 83 S.Ct. 1875, 10 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1963). And the latter two cases strongly suggest that visual observation of a private area through apertures not intended by the occupants to be used for that purpose (a transom in McDonald, a hole in a door in Regalado) constitutes a search within…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1963)