Bromley v. Crisp
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge.
These habeas suits present various questions arising from the unconstitutionality of Oklahoma juvenile code provisions which have been held invalid due to a sex-based discriminatory provision allowing male youths 16 and 17 years of age to be prosecuted as adults under the State criminal laws while requiring that females of those ages be treated under the juvenile code of Oklahoma unless first certified to stand trial as adults. See 10 O.S.Supp.1969 § 1101(a). In Lamb v. Brown, 456 F.2d 18 (10th Cir.), we held that statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause due…
2Cases cited65 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Picard v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- McMann v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Fay v. NoiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by94 opinions
- James Capps v. George SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1993
- United States v. Thomas Alan SumnerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Kenneth Wayne Magouirk v. Michael Phillips, Warden, Winn Correctional Center and Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General, State of LouisianaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1998
- Garland Rex Brinlee, Jr. v. Richard A. Crisp, Warden, and the State of OklahomaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1979
- Burton v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.