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.
Contracts · MBE-tested
Linder, Warden v. Recor
412 U.S. 935·Supreme Court of the United States·1973
Mr. Justice Douglas would affirm the judgment.
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. 71-1281.
Linder, Warden v. Recor.
See Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, ante, p. 35, and Moon v. Maryland, 398 U. S. 319, 321 (1970) (dissenting opinions).
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, ante, p. 17.
Mr. Justice Douglas would affirm the judgment.