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.
California v. Stewart, 1966 — 382 U.S. 969 · caselaw · US
General
California v. Stewart
382 U.S. 969·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
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. 584.
California v. Stewart.
Thomas G. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Gordon Ringer, Deputy Attorney General, for petitioner.
William A. Norris for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Sup. Ct. Cal. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 937.) Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the record granted. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Motion of petitioner to remove case from summary calendar granted and a total of one and one-half hours is allotted for oral argument.