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.
Lisenba v. California, 1941 — 313 U.S. 537 · caselaw · US
General
Lisenba v. California
313 U.S. 53785 L. Ed. 1507·Supreme Court of the United States·1941
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
Nos. 133 and 134.
Lisenba v. California.
Argued February 6, 1941.
Decided April 7, 1941.
Mr. Morris Lavine for petitioner. Messrs. Everett W. Mattoon, Assistant Attorney General of California, and Eugene D. Williams, with whom Messrs. Earl Warren, Attorney General, and Frank Richards, Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.