# Dyke v. Taylor Implement Manufacturing Co.

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 20, 1968 · 391 U.S. 216

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423699

## Case

- **Full name:** DYKE Et Al. v. TAYLOR IMPLEMENT MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 20, 1968
- **Citations:** 391 U.S. 216; 88 S. Ct. 1472; 20 L. Ed. 2d 538; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1632
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Black
- **Judges:** White, Harlan, Black, Stewart, Douglas
- **Cited by:** 370 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423699

## Opinion text

*223 Mr. Justice Black,
with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,
dissenting.
The Court holds in this case, as it said in dictum in Bloom v. Illinois, ante, p. 194, that persons charged with so-called “petty” crimes are not entitled to trial by jury. I am not as sure as the Court seems to be that this classification should be used to deprive a criminal defendant of a jury trial. See my dissenting opinion in Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 193-219 . The word “petty” has no exact meaning, and until it is given a better definition than that which the Court gives to it today, I do not desire to condemn the right to trial by jury to such an uncertain fate. See Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U. S. 373, 384-393 (dissenting opinion). My Brother Harlan’s dissent in Duncan v. Louisiana, ante, p. 171, points out that whippings, even where 31 lashes were inflicted, were classified as petty crimes. And the Court here states that six months’ punishment is petty. I am loath to hold whippings or six months’ punishment as “petty.” And here, where the offense is punishable by a $50 fine and 10 days in jail behind bars, I feel the same way. Even though there be some offenses that are “petty,” I would not hold that this offense falls in that category. See my dissenting opinion in United States v. Barnett, 376 U. S. 681, 727 . Since I would reverse and remand this case for a trial by jury, I do not find it necessary to consider the other questions decided by the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423699. Public record. Not legal advice.