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.
Randolph et al. v. Municipal Court, Southern Judicial District, County of San Mateo, et al. (California, Real Party in Interest), 1979 — 439 U.S. 1060 · caselaw · US
General
Randolph et al. v. Municipal Court, Southern Judicial District, County of San Mateo, et al. (California, Real Party in Interest)
439 U.S. 1060·Supreme Court of the United States·1979
Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall would reverse the convictions.
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. 78-360.
Randolph et al. v. Municipal Court, Southern Judicial District, County of San Mateo, et al. (California, Real Party in Interest).
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Disk, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall would reverse the convictions.