Palko v. Connecticut
Significance, Supreme Court Announces A "fundamental Fairness" Test For Constitutional Limits On State Power
State of Connecticut
That when the state tried him a second time for the same offense, it violated the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
David Goldstein, George A. Saden
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
William H. Comley
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Louis D. Brandeis, Benjamin N. Cardozo (writing for the Court), Charles Evans Hughes, James Clark McReynolds, Owen Josephus Roberts, Harlan Fiske Stone, George Sutherland
Date of Decision
6 December 1937
The Supreme Court upheld the Connecticut law that permitted the state to appeal judgments, and retry defendants, in certain criminal cases.
- Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).
- Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908).
- Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947).
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969).
- Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company
- Olmstead v. United States - Significance, Court Rules That Wiretapping Does Not Constitute Illegal Search And Seizure, Wiretapping In America
- Palko v. Connecticut - Further Readings
- Palko v. Connecticut - Significance
- Palko v. Connecticut - Supreme Court Announces A "fundamental Fairness" Test For Constitutional Limits On State Power
- Other Free Encyclopedias