ASHTON

v.

KENTUCKY

Citator

Cited By

• Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966)
  …onviction.3 In view of constitutional decisions since we last considered these issues in Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U. S. 432—see Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478; Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643—we granted certiorari. 382 U. S. 971. We affirm. I. The Due Process Clause Claim. Breithaupt was also a case in which police officers caused blood to be withdrawn from the driver of an automobile involved in an accident, and in which there was ample justification for the officer’s c…
• City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1966)
  …ng on the truth of the defendants’ allegations under § 1443 (1). Weathers v. City of Greenwood, 347 F. 2d 986. We granted certiorari to consider the important questions raised by the parties concerning the scope of the civil rights removal statute. 382 U. S. 971.8 As in Georgia v. Rachel, ante, p. 780, we deal here not with questions of congressional power, but with issues of statutory construction. I. The individual petitioners contend that, quite apart from 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (1), they are entitled to…
• United States v. Blue, 384 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1966)
  …rmining that the District Court had sustained a “motion in bar, when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy” so that a direct appeal lay to this Court,2 the Court of Appeals certified the case to us, 350 F. 2d 267, and we postponed jurisdiction, 382 U. S. 971. We agree that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal and, on the merits, reverse the decision of the District Court. Since Blue had not yet been brought to trial and put in jeopardy when dismissal occurred, see United States v. Celestine, 21…