§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE R.V.

Respondent’s Answer Brief on the Merits

51 Cited authorities

  1. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,517 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation

  2. Ornelas v. United States

    517 U.S. 690 (1996)   Cited 6,577 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellate courts should review reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations de novo

  3. Thompson v. Keohane

    516 U.S. 99 (1995)   Cited 2,441 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that factual determinations consist of "basic, primary, or historical facts" (quoting Townsend v. Sain , 372 U.S. 293, 309 n.6, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) )

  4. People v. Doolin

    45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 3,884 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied

  5. Drope v. Missouri

    420 U.S. 162 (1975)   Cited 2,924 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant's "demeanor at trial" may establish a need for further inquiry into the defendant's competency

  6. In re Gault

    387 U.S. 1 (1967)   Cited 4,095 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that children in juvenile delinquency proceedings have a right to notice of the charges, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and a right against self-incrimination

  7. Kentucky v. Stincer

    482 U.S. 730 (1987)   Cited 1,591 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that exclusion of a defendant from an ex parte in-chambers hearing at which the competency of two child witnesses was determined did not violate due process

  8. Medina v. California

    505 U.S. 437 (1992)   Cited 1,302 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Due Process Clause has limited operation beyond the specific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights

  9. Townsend v. Sain

    372 U.S. 293 (1963)   Cited 4,424 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the federal court must grant an evidentiary hearing where " there is a substantial allegation of newly discovered evidence"

  10. Miller v. Fenton

    474 U.S. 104 (1985)   Cited 1,629 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding "assessments of credibility and demeanor" are "not crucial" to deciding voluntariness of confession; relevant inquiry is "whether the techniques for extracting the statements . . . are compatible with a system that presumes innocence and assures that a conviction will not be secured by inquisitorial means"

  11. Section 1415 - Procedural safeguards

    20 U.S.C. § 1415   Cited 7,203 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "before the filing of a civil action . . . seeking relief that is also available under [the IDEA], the [IDEA's administrative] procedures . . . shall be exhausted"

  12. Rule 8.71 - Electronic filing

    Cal. R. 8.71

    (a) Mandatory electronic filing Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the Supreme Court Rules Regarding Electronic Filing, or court order, all parties are required to file all documents electronically in the reviewing court. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2020.) (b)Self-represented parties (1) Self-represented parties are exempt from the requirement to file documents electronically. (2) A self-represented party may agree to file documents electronically. By electronically filing any