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.
A QUANTITY OF COPIES OF BOOKS et al. v. KANSAS, 1967 — 388 U.S. 452 · caselaw · US
General
A QUANTITY OF COPIES OF BOOKS et al. v. KANSAS
388 U.S. 45218 L. Ed. 2d 1314·Supreme Court of the United States·1967
The Chief Justice would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument in light of A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U. S. 205. · Mr. Justice Clark would grant the petition and affirm the judgment. · 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
A QUANTITY OF COPIES OF BOOKS et al. v. KANSAS.
No. 865.
Decided June 12, 1967.
Stanley Fleishman for petitioners.
Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General of Kansas, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Kansas is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
The Chief Justice would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument in light of A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U. S. 205.
Mr. Justice Clark would grant the petition and affirm the judgment.
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.