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.
General
California v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (Engert et al., Real Parties in Interest)
449 U.S. 945·Supreme Court of the United States·1980
Justice Brennan, Justice Stewart, and Justice Stevens dissent.
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. 80-274.
California v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (Engert et al., Real Parties in Interest).
[MAJORITY]
Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Motion of respondents Engert and Gamble for leavé to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded to the Court of Appeal to consider whether its judgment is based upon federal or state constitutional grounds, or both. See California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33 (1972).
Justice Brennan, Justice Stewart, and Justice Stevens dissent.