CHARLOTTE ANITA WHITNEY

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1927)
  …ror which was allowed by the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, the highest court of the State in which a decision could be had. Jud. Code, § 237. On the first hearing in .this Court, the writ of error was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 269 U. S. 530. Thereafter, a petition for rehearing was granted, Ib. 538; and the case was again heard and reargued both as to the jurisdiction and the merits. The pertinent provisions of the Criminal Syndicalism Act are: “ Section 1. The term ‘ criminal syndic…
• W. Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1937)
  …1925 and 1927, the similar minimum wage statutes of Arizona and Arkansas were held invalid upon the authority of the Adkins case. The Justices who had! dissented in that case bowed to the ruling and Mr. Justice Brandeis dissented. Murphy v. Sardell, 269 U. S. 530; Donham v. West-Nelson Co., 273 U. S. 657. The question did not come before us again until the last . term in the Morehead case, as already noted. In that case, briefs supporting the New York statute were submitted by the States of Ohio, Connecticut…
• Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 353 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1957)
  …was insisted upon in Whitney v. California, the well-known civil liberties case, by a Court that included Justices Holmes and Brandéis, as mindful as any in protecting the liberties guaranteed by [*276] the Due Process Clause. Whitney v. California, 269 U. S. 530, 538; 274 U. S. 357. See also Honeyman v. Hanan, 300 U. S. 14; cf. Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551. The procedure of making sure, through appropriate certification by a state court, that the federal question was in fact adjudicated, is…