# Kent v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 22, 1966 · 383 U.S. 541

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9841968

## Case

- **Full name:** Kent v. United States
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 22, 1966
- **Citations:** 383 U.S. 541; 86 S. Ct. 1045; 16 L. Ed. 2d 84; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2015
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stewart
- **Judges:** Eortas, Stewart, Black, Haelan, White
- **Cited by:** 1,842 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by State Ex Rel. Coats v. Rakestraw, 1980 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 145 (1980).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 8
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9841968

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that counsel for juvenile is entitled to access "to the social records and probation or similar reports which presumably are considered by the court” in its decision on waiver, based on "statute read in the context of constitutional principles relating to due process a…
- recognizing that “the admonition to function in a ‘parental’ relationship is not an invitation to procedural arbitrariness” and holding that a juvenile is entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether juvenile court jurisdiction should be waived before being released to a crim…
- holding that a juvenile court's decision to waive jurisdiction -- without first affording any hearing, any participation or representation of the juvenile, or any statement of reasons on the critical issues prescribed by statute -- violated "basic requirements of due process a…
- holding that a juvenile courfis decision to waive jurisdiction— without first affording any hearing, any participation or representation of the juvenile, or any statement of reasons on the critical issues prescribed by statute — violated “basic requirements of due process and …

## Opinion text

Me. Justice Stewart,
with whom Me. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Haelan and Me. Justice White join, dissenting.
This case involves the construction of a statute applicable only to the District of Columbia. Our general practice is to leave undisturbed decisions of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concerning the import of legislation governing the affairs of the District. General Motors Corp. v. District of Columbia, 380 U. S. 553, 556 . It appears, however, that two cases decided by the Court of Appeals subsequent to its decision in the present case may have considerably modified the court’s construction of the statute. Therefore, I would vacate this judgment and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in the light of its subsequent decisions, Watkins v. United States, 119 U. S. App. D. C. 409, 343 F. 2d 278 , and Black v. United States, 122 U. S. App. D. C. 393, 355 F. 2d 104 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9841968. Public record. Not legal advice.