FOSTER

v.

HARDY ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1977)
  …he defendant to disprove any fact essential to the offense charged since the New York affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance bears no direct relationship to any element of murder. This appeal ensued, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 429 U.S. 813 (1976). We affirm. II It goes without saying that preventing and dealing with crime is much more the business of the States than it is of the Federal Government, Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128, 134 (1954) (plurality opinion), and that we shou…
• Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1977)
  …t that the remedy was to ban that form, rather than all advertising. Thus, despite his “personal dislike of the concept of advertising by attorneys,” id., at 402, 555 P. 2d, at 648, he found the ban unconstitutional. We noted probable jurisdiction. 429 U. S. 813 (1976). [*359] II The Sherman Act In Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943), this Court held that the Sherman Act was not intended to apply against certain state action. See also Olsen v. Smith, 195 U. S. 332, 344-345 (1904). In Parker a raisin pro…
• Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1977)
  …, Inc. v. Gregg, D. Del., 348 F. Supp. 1004 (1972).[11] “We hold that seizure of the Greyhound shares is not invalid because plaintiff has failed to meet the prior contacts tests of International Shoe.” Id., at 229. We noted probable jurisdiction. 429 U. S. 813.12 We reverse. [*196] II The Delaware courts rejected appellants’ jurisdictional challenge by noting that this suit was brought as a quasi in rem proceeding. Since quasi in rem jurisdiction is traditionally based on attachment or seizure of propert…