Contracts · MBE-tested
Crow et al. v. California Department of Human Resources Development et al.
420 U.S. 917·Supreme Court of the United States·1975
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. 73-1015.
Crow et al. v. California Department of Human Resources Development et al.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded with directions to consider question of mootness in light of Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 (1975), and Indiana Employment Security Division v. Burney, 409 U. S. 540 (1973). See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950). If the court determines that the case is not moot, it should consider whether a three-judge court is required. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528, 543-545 (1974); Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U. S. 379 (1975); cf. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713, 716 (1962). Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
See also note, supra, p. 914.