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.
United States v. California, 1964 — 377 U.S. 986 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
United States v. California
377 U.S. 986·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
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. 5,
Original.
United States v. California.
Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, for defendant.
[For earlier orders herein, see 375 U. S. 927, 990; ante, p. 926.]
[MAJORITY]
The joint motion to set this case down for oral argument on the exceptions to the report of the Special Master is granted and two hours are allotted to each side for that purpose. The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.