Draft:New York v. O'Neill
 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,441 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
| New York v. O'Neill | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 20, 1958 Decided March 2, 1959 | |
| Full case name | New York v. O'Neill |
| Citations | 359 U.S. 1 (more) 27 U.SJ.. Week 4189[1] |
| Case history | |
| Prior | In re O'Neill, 100 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1958). |
| Holding | |
| A Florida statute, established by the enactment of the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings, on its face does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2 of the Constitution nor the Privileges and Immunities or Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Frankfurter |
| Dissent | Douglas, joined by Black |
New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Florida statute, established by the enactment of the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings which established a procedure for a witness to be subpoened with the agreement of a court in a trial state and a court in the state of the witness, on its face does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2 of the Constitution nor the Privileges and Immunities or Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2][3][4] At the time, the uniform law had been adopted in 42 states of the United States, as well as Puerto Rico.[5][6]
Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote the opinion for the court.[2][4] Justice William O. Douglas, joined by Justice Hugo Black, dissented.[2][4] The dissenting justices were of the view that a state could only require a person to travel from one state to another if he were a fugitive from justice.[4][7]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "Attendance Of Out-Of-State Witnesses In Criminal Trials," 16 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 120 (1959).
- ^ a b c "New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1 (1959)," Justia.
- ^ Darrell E. White II (May 18, 2021). "Subpoenaing Out-of-State Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings: A Step-by-Step Guide," National Association of Attorneys General.
- ^ a b c d W. Slivka (September 1959). "Uniform Law to Secure Attendance of Witnesses Upheld," Western Reserve Law Review, p. 611.
- ^ "Today in Supreme Court History: March 2," captcrisis.com.
- ^ "Supreme Court Decisions," ABA Journal, June 1959, volume 45, p. 615.
- ^ JD McD (June 1959). "Compulsory Attendance of Nonresident Witnesses," West Virginia Law Review, Volume 61, Issue 4, p. 292.
External links
[edit]- Text of New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1 (1959) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Category:Article Four of the United States Constitution Category:Discovery (law) Category:Evidence law Category:Florida law Category:Legal procedure Category:Uniform Acts Category:United States due process case law Category:United States Fourteenth Amendment case law Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court Category:1959 in American law Category:1959 in United States case law