Legal Opinion

Danforth v. Minnesota

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 20, 2008No. 06-8273PublishedCited by 389 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Stevens

New constitutional rules announced by this Court that place certain kinds of primary individual conduct beyond the power of the States to proscribe, as well as “watershed” rules of criminal procedure, must be applied in all future trials, all cases pending on direct review, and all federal habeas corpus proceedings. All other new rules of criminal procedure must be applied in future trials and in cases pending on direct review, but may not provide the basis for a federal collateral attack on a state-court conviction. This is the substance of the “Teague rule” described by Justice O’Connor in…

2Cases cited62 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  5. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963

57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by389 opinions

  1. Buck v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 2017
  2. Montgomery v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  3. Munaf v. GerenSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  4. Welch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  5. Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011

384 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API