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.
Hayles v. United States, 1974 — 419 U.S. 892 · caselaw · US
General
Hayles v. United States
419 U.S. 892·Supreme Court of the United States·1974
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissent.
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. 73-6795.
Hayles v. United States.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 5th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Upon representation of the Solicitor General set forth in his brief for the United States filed September 19, 1974, judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated and case remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas to permit the Government to
dismiss the charges against petitioner.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissent.