DAVID, AKA DAVIS

v.

TEXAS; THAMES V. TEXAS; TEA V. TEXAS; FARRELL V. STOVALL ET AL.; SELLARS V. BETO, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR; JACKSON V. BETO, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR; JEFFERSON ET AL. V. HACKNEY, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WELFARE, ET AL.; MILLER V. GEORGIA; WILLIAMS V. SMITH, WARDEN; MORALES V. TEXAS; MCKENZIE V. TEXAS; HENDERSON V. GEORGIA; ORR V. TRINTER ET AL.; UNITED STATES V. BYRUM, EXECUTRIX; WEG V. UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ET AL. V. MIDWEST VIDEO CORP.; MUSE V. NORTH CAROLINA; FORD MOTOR CO. V. ELLIPSE CORP.; WATTS V. MYLIUS; DEPUGH V. UNITED STATES; STEIN V. UNITED STATES; MASTROTATARO V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• Nat'l Welf. Rights Org. v. Mathews, 533 F.2d 637 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
  …deralism underpinning the AFDC program. See, e. g., New York Department of Social Services v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405, 414, 93 S.Ct. 2507, 37 L.Ed.2d 688 (1973); Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535, 542, 92 S.Ct. 1724, 32 L.Ed.2d 285, rehearing denied, 409 U.S. 898, 93 S.Ct. 178, 34 L.Ed.2d 156 (1972); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 478, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970); King v. Smith, supra, 392 U.S. at 316, 88 S.Ct. 2128 (1968). Each state has the undisputed power to determine the standards of need…
• Grimaldi v. United States, 606 F.2d 332 (1st Cir. 1979)
  …45 N.E. 610, 612 (1924), cited in United States v. Klein, 565 F. 2d 183, 189-90 n. 10 (1st Cir. 1977). See also United States v. DePugh, 452 F. 2d 915 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 407 U.S. 920, 92 S.Ct. 2452, 32 L.Ed.2d 805 (1972), reh. denied, 409 U.S. 898, 93 S.Ct. 101, 34 L.Ed.2d 157 (1972) (“destructive devices”); James v. United States, 416 F. 2d 467 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 907, 90 S.Ct. 902, 25 L.Ed.2d 87 (1970) (“gambling paraphernalia”); United States v. Johnson, supra (“marijua…
• United States v. Sanchez, 509 F.2d 886 (6th Cir. 1975)
  …band is the subject of a search and seizure. See Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 485-486, 85 S.Ct. 506, 13 L.Ed.2d 431 (1965); United States v. DePugh, 452 F. 2d 915 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 407 U.S. 920, 92 S.Ct. 2452, 32 L.Ed.2d 805, reh. denied 409 U.S. 898, 03 S.Ct. 101, 34 L.Ed.2d 157 (1972). . No contention is made that the explosives, because they were in containers, were not in “plain view.” . Amendment IV — Searches And Seizures The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, pa…