Supreme Court· 5/4/1964

Ungar v. Sarafite

Citations

376 U.S. 575
84 S. Ct. 841
11 L. Ed. 2d 921
1964 U.S. LEXIS 1535

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that state trial judge did not become \personally embroiled” with trial witness and thus could preside over contempt proceedings arising from the witness's \contemptuous remarks” toward the judge
concluding that denials of continuance requests in a criminal trial did not violate due process
holding that this is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge, and not all denials of requests for additional time violate due process
stating that “a myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay” can constitute an abuse of discretion
stating that “a myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay” can constitute an abuse of discretion
stating that “insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay can render the right to defend with counsel an empty formality”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Harlan, White, Black, Goldberg, Douglas

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1,157 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Ungar v. Sarafite

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.