Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Allen Et Al. v. Mccurry

• 1980 • 449 U.S. 90 • Burger Court
In Allen et al. v. McCurry, 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state court defendant who had fully and fairly litigated Fourth Amendment claims during his trial and appeal process could not subsequently raise those same issues in a federal habeas corpus proceeding under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The case involved respondent McCurry's conviction for robbery in Missouri State Court despite his claim that evidence was seized from him unlawfully by St Louis police...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1980
Docket: 79-935
449 U.S. 90
101 S. Ct. 411
66 L. Ed. 2d 308
1980 U.S. LEXIS 156
Argued: Oct 08, 1980

Allen Et Al. v. Mccurry

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Allen et al. v. McCurry, 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state court defendant who had fully and fairly litigated Fourth Amendment claims during his trial and appeal process could not subsequently raise those same issues in a federal habeas corpus proceeding under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The case involved respondent McCurry's conviction for robbery in Missouri State Court despite his claim that evidence was seized from him unlawfully by St Louis police officers without probable cause or warrant which violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. After exhausting all appeals at state level, he filed suit in Federal District Court alleging violation of civil rights but it was dismissed on grounds of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). On further appeal to Eighth Circuit Court, it reversed district court’s decision stating federal courts should independently review constitutional claims regardless if they were decided earlier by state courts but this was overturned by Supreme Court holding issue preclusion applicable to Section 1983 suits.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Allen et al. v. McCurry, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with both precedent and congressional intent regarding Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. He contended that a state court judgment should not preclude federal review in a civil rights case unless it is shown that the constitutional claim was fully and fairly litigated in state court, which he believed had not occurred in this instance. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential harm to individuals' ability to seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights if they are barred from bringing claims under Section 1983 due to prior state court proceedings on related matters. In his view, such an approach would undermine Congress's purpose in enacting Section 1983 - namely, providing a federal remedy when state courts fail to adequately protect individuals' constitutional rights.

Opinion written by Justice PStewart
Decided: Dec 09, 1980
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms