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.
Chessman v. Teets, Warden, 1957 — 353 U.S. 928 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Chessman v. Teets, Warden
353 U.S. 928·Supreme Court of the United States·1957
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
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. 566,
Misc.
Chessman v. Teets, Warden.
[MAJORITY]
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The case is transferred to the appellate docket and set for oral argument on May 13, 1957, upon the following terms:
1. The writ of certiorari is limited to the question whether, in the circumstances of this case, the state court proceedings to settle the trial transcript, upon which petitioner’s automatic appeal from his conviction was necessarily heard by the Supreme Court of the State of California, in which trial court proceedings petitioner allegedly was not represented in person or by counsel designated by the state court in his behalf, resulted in denying petitioner due process of law, within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
2. Appearances upon the writ of certiorari will be confined to counsel for the respective parties, and their argument will be limited to the single question indicated above.
George T. Davis for petitioner. Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General of California, and Clarence A. Linn, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
3. The brief for the petitioner will be served and filed on or before April 24, 1957. The brief for the respondent will be served and filed on or before May 10, 1957. The petitioner may file a reply brief within one week after the oral argument.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.