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.
Avent et al. v. North Carolina, 1962 — 370 U.S. 934 · caselaw · US
General
Avent et al. v. North Carolina
370 U.S. 934·Supreme Court of the United States·1962
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. 85.
Avent et al. v. North Carolina.
Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, William A. Marsh, Jr., F. B. McKissick, C. 0. Pearson, M. Hugh Thompson, William T. Coleman, Jr., Louis H. Poliak, Charles A. Reich and Spottswood W. Robinson III for petitioners. T. W. Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Ralph Moody, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Supreme Court of North Carolina. Certiorari granted.