LISHEY

v.

CALIFORNIA ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406 (U.S. 1966)
  …refusal shall not be commented upon by counsel for the prosecution.” 337 F. 2d 990, 992. We granted certiorari, requesting the parties “to brief and argue the question of the retroactivity of the doctrine announced in Griffin v. California . . . .” 381 U. S. 923. Since, as we have noted, the original Ohio [*409] judgment of conviction in this case became final long before Griffin v. California was decided by this Court, that question is squarely presented.3 II. In Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, we h…
• Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers OF Am., 383 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1966)
  …Appeals affirmed, 337 F. 2d 68, assuming without deciding that the statements in question were “false, malicious, clearly libelous and damaging to plaintiff Linn, albeit they were relevant to the union’s campaign.” At p. 69. We granted certiorari, 381 U. S. 923. We conclude that where either party to a labor dispute circulates false and defamatory statements during a union organizing campaign, the court does have jurisdiction to apply state remedies if the complainant pleads and proves that the statements…
• Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1966)
  …affirmed its judg-ment. [*402] 6 This left appellant subject to the judgment for costs and the “sentence” to enforce payment. We noted jurisdiction to consider the question raised concerning vagueness and absence of proper standards in the 1860 Act. 381 U. S. 923. We agree with the trial court and the dissenting judges in the appellate courts below that the 1860 Act is invalid under the Due Process Clause because of vagueness and the absence of any standards sufficient to enable defendants to protect themsel…