| 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]
Contents
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]