Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Missouri v. Crews; Missouri v. Crews; Missouri v. Helton; and Missouri v. Tunstall, 1981 — 452 U.S. 957 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Missouri v. Crews; Missouri v. Crews; Missouri v. Helton; and Missouri v. Tunstall
452 U.S. 957·Supreme Court of the United States·1981
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 80-1393.
Missouri v. Crews; Missouri v. Crews; Missouri v. Helton; and Missouri v. Tunstall.
[MAJORITY]
Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Motions of respondents Timothy Crews, Willie Tunstall, and Terry Gene Crews for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Albernaz v. United States, 450 U. S. 333 (1981).