Marder v. Massachusetts
Cases that cite this one
65 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Belezos v. Board of Selectmen of Hingham, Massachusetts (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2019)
- Commonwealth v. Weiss (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2004)
- Covington v. City of Raleigh (4th Cir. 1976)
- Covington v. City of Raleigh (4th Cir. 1976)
- United States v. Johnnie T. Warren (9th Cir. 1994)
- United States v. Robert D. Goodoak (1st Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Robert McPartlin (7th Cir. 1979)
- United States v. Frank Stearns Giese (9th Cir. 1979)
- Commonwealth v. Germano (Mass. 1979)
- United States v. David Mathis, United States of America v. Samuel Moore (4th Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Jose Demetrio Arteaga-Limones and Mike Lozano Cantu (5th Cir. 1976)
- United States v. Marvin Ray Huffman (6th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. James Slaton (7th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Morris Garfield Williams, Jr. (9th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Salvatore Battaglia and Dave Evans (7th Cir. 1968)
- Joseph C. Amsler and John W. Irwin v. United States (9th Cir. 1967)
- United States v. David Ludden (9th Cir. 1994)
- Commonwealth v. Mongardi (Mass. App. Ct. 1988)
- Commonwealth v. Neely (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1987)
- United States v. Dennis Burke (7th Cir. 1986)
- United States v. Laszlo Szabo (10th Cir. 1986)
- United States v. Gus Curcio, United States of America v. James Hawley (2d Cir. 1985)
- United States v. Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, & Helpers (District Court, D. New Jersey 1984)
- People v. Robinson (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)
- Zinn v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
MARDER
v.
MASSACHUSETTS.
Supreme Court of United States.
Appellant pro se.
Edward W. Brooke, Attorney General of Massachusetts, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, dissenting.
This appeal raises the question of whether a person charged with a traffic violation (or presumably any other criminal offense) may be forced by a statute, General Laws of Mass., c. 90, §§ 20 and 20A, to choose between foregoing a trial by pleading guilty and paying a small fine, or going to trial and thereby exposing himself to the possibility of a greater punishment if found guilty. I express no view on the merits of this question. But I would note probable jurisdiction, since the issue, in my view, presents a substantial federal question, and since I am not convinced that the generally sound advice to "pay the two dollars" necessarily reflects a constitutionally permissible requirement.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.