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.
Hickock v. Crouse, Warden; and Smith v. Crouse, Warden, 1965 — 379 U.S. 982 · caselaw · US
General
Hickock v. Crouse, Warden; and Smith v. Crouse, Warden
379 U.S. 982·Supreme Court of the United States·1965
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. 610,
No. 614,
Misc.
Misc.
Hickock v. Crouse, Warden; and Smith v. Crouse, Warden.
Joseph P. Jenkins for petitioner in No. 610, Misc. Petitioner pro se in No. 614, Misc. William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, and /. Richard Foth, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent in both cases.-
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 334 F. 2d 96.