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.
Latham et al. v. Crouse, Warden, 1963 — 375 U.S. 959 · caselaw · US
General
Latham et al. v. Crouse, Warden
375 U.S. 959·Supreme Court of the United States·1963
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. 666,
Misc.
Latham et al. v. Crouse, Warden.
Lawrence Speiser and Bernard Roazen for petitioners. William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, and J. Richard Foth and Park McGee, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.