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.
Gayles v. United States; Spurlark v. United States; Green v. United States; and Davis et al. v. United States, 1964 — 377 U.S. 944 · caselaw · US
General
Gayles v. United States; Spurlark v. United States; Green v. United States; and Davis et al. v. United States
377 U.S. 944·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
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. 973.
No. 974.
No. 975.
No. 1288,
Misc.
Gayles v. United States; Spurlark v. United States; Green v. United States; and Davis et al. v. United States.
Charles B. Evins for petitioner in No. 973.
Evelyn F. Johnson and Glenn T. Johnson, Sr. for petitioner in No. 974.
George F. Callaghan and Julius Lucius Echeles for petitioner in No. 975.
George N. Leighton for petitioners in No. 1288, Mise. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome Nelson for the United States.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 327 F. 2d 715.