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.
Harvey, alias McCargo, v. Cunningham, Penitentiary Superintendent; Chewning v. Cunningham, Penitentiary Superintendent, 1962 — 371 U.S. 803 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Harvey, alias McCargo, v. Cunningham, Penitentiary Superintendent; Chewning v. Cunningham, Penitentiary Superintendent
371 U.S. 803·Supreme Court of the United States·1962
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of th,ese motions.
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. 7, Misc.,
No. 63,
Harvey, alias McCargo, v. Cunningham, Penitentiary Superintendent, Chewning v. Cunningham, Penitentiary Superintendent,
Petitioners pro se.
Reno S. Harp III, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, for respondent.
October Term, 1961.
October Term, 1961.
[MAJORITY]
369 U. S. 152; and
368 U. S. 443. The motions of petitioners to clarify opinions and for other relief are denied.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of th,ese motions.