Statements (59)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
| gptkbp:caseOutcome |
Interpreted in various legal contexts.
The conviction was upheld. Evaluated in legal studies. Impact on the legal system. Influenced state criminal procedures. The ruling affected future legal interpretations. |
| gptkbp:caseTypes |
criminal law
No. 1, 1884. |
| gptkbp:citedBy |
110 U.S. 516
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Set a precedent for future due process cases.
|
| gptkbp:court |
Cited in later due process cases.
The decision was 7-1. |
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
1884 |
| gptkbp:followedBy |
The_case_of_Hurtado_v._California,_1884.
|
| gptkbp:historical_analysis |
Discussed in law reviews.
|
| gptkbp:historicalContext |
Reflects the legal attitudes of the 1880s.
|
| gptkbp:historicalEvent |
Part of the historical development of due process.
|
| gptkbp:historicalSignificance |
One of the early cases on due process.
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Hurtado v. California
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
|
| gptkbp:influencedBy |
The_Bill_of_Rights.
|
| gptkbp:judges |
Influenced judicial interpretations of rights.
Dissent_by_Justice_John_Marshall_Harlan. Majority_opinion_by_Justice_Stanley_Matthews. Reviewed_by_the_U.S._Supreme_Court. |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:California
|
| gptkbp:legalStatus |
Due Process
19th century American legal system. Addressed the incorporation of rights. Challenged the lack of a grand jury. Clarified the scope of the 14th Amendment. Due process is not absolute. Established that not all rights are fundamental. Part of the debate on grand juries. Part of the legal framework for due process. Represented by attorney. |
| gptkbp:notableFeature |
Documented in legal archives.
Used as a case study in law schools. Analyzed for its constitutional implications. Analyzed in legal textbooks. Discussed in legal forums. Important for understanding due process rights. Referenced in legal opinions. Relevant in discussions of civil rights. Significant in discussions of civil liberties. Summarized in legal databases. Critiqued_by_legal_scholars. Documented_in_Supreme_Court_records. |
| gptkbp:outcome |
The court ruled that the right to a grand jury is not a fundamental right.
|
| gptkbp:politicalAffiliation |
State of California
Hurtado |
| gptkbp:precededBy |
The case of Ex parte Wilson.
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Subsequent cases regarding due process
|
| gptkbp:relatedPatent |
gptkb:Duncan_v._Louisiana
gptkb:Palko_v._Connecticut Implications for state law. |
| gptkbp:team |
Legacy_in_American_legal_history.
|