PRIVITERA

v.

CALIFORNIA; AND TURNER ET AL. V. CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (U.S. 1980)
  …property cannot be denied by invocation of a state constitutional provision or by judicial reconstruction of a State’s laws of private property. We postponed consideration of the question of jurisdiction until the hearing of the case on the merits. 444 U. S. 949. We now affirm. II We initially conclude that this case is properly before us as an appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). It has long been established that a state constitutional provision is a “statute” within the meaning of § 1257 (2). See, e. g.…
• Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1980)
  …and a greater share of reimbursements for that office, § 16 (e) could distort the assistant regional administrator’s objectivity in assessing penal [*242] ties for violations of the child labor provisions of the Act. We noted probable jurisdiction, 444 U. S. 949 (1979), and now reverse. II A The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases. This requirement of neutrality in adjudicative proceedings safeguards the two central concerns.of…
• United States v. Oliver, 683 F.2d 224 (7th Cir. 1982)
  …r had defendants exercised due diligence; (3) is material, and not merely impeaching or cumulative; and (4) would probably lead to an acquittal in the event of a retrial. See also United States v. Pappas, 602 F. 2d 131, 133 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 949, 100 S.Ct. 421, 62 L.Ed.2d 319 (1979). As recognized in United States v. Curran, 465 F. 2d 260, 262 (7th Cir. 1972), these standards reflect the fact that such motions “are not favored by the courts and are viewed with great caution.” See also Uni…