Contracts · MBE-tested

KAYE v. CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE ON DISCIPLINE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

386 U.S. 1717 L. Ed. 2d 698·Supreme Court of the United States·1967

Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment below for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Harlan in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S., at 520, and Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493, 500.

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

KAYE v. CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE ON DISCIPLINE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. No. 300. Decided February 13, 1967. Morton Lif tin for petitioner. Angelo T. Cometa for respondent. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, for reconsideration in light of Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S. 511. Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment below for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Harlan in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S., at 520, and Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493, 500. [DISSENT — Mr. Justice White] Mr. Justice White dissents for the. reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Garrity v. New Jersey, and Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S., at 530.