General
RATNER et al. v. CALIFORNIA
388 U.S. 44218 L. Ed. 2d 1304·Supreme Court of the United States·1967
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Clark, and Mr. Justice Brennan would affirm. · Mr. Justice Harlan adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm.
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
RATNER et al. v. CALIFORNIA.
No. 10.
Decided June 12, 1967.
Richard A. Lavine for petitioners.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Robert R. Granucci and Charles W. Rumph, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Clark, and Mr. Justice Brennan would affirm.
Mr. Justice Harlan adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm.