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.
Grove Press, Inc. v. Bailey, Sheriff, 1973 — 413 U.S. 904 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Grove Press, Inc. v. Bailey, Sheriff
413 U.S. 904·Supreme Court of the United States·1973
Mr. Justice Brennan, joined by Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall, would vacate the judgment and remand case for further consideration in light of Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225 (1972). Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this appeal.
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. 70-24.
Grove Press, Inc. v. Bailey, Sheriff.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ala. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, ante, p. 15; Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, ante, p. 49; Kaplan v. California, ante, p. 115; United States v. 12 200-ft Reels Film, ante, p. 123; United States v. Orito, ante, p. 139; Heller v. New York, ante, p. 483; Roaden v. Kentucky, ante, p. 496; and Alexander v. Virginia, ante, p. 836.
Mr. Justice Brennan, joined by Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall, would vacate the judgment and remand case for further consideration in light of Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225 (1972). Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this appeal.