Contracts · MBE-tested

SPENCE et al. v. NORTH CAROLINA

392 U.S. 64920 L. Ed. 2d 1350·Supreme Court of the United States·1968

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent, for reasons stated in Mr. Justice Black's dissenting opinion in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 532. · Mr. Justice White dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 540.

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

SPENCE et al. v. NORTH CAROLINA. No. 759, Misc. Decided June 17, 1968. Sam, Houston Clinton, Jr., for petitioner in No. 1311, Mise. T. W. Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Harry W. McCalliard, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent in No. 759, Mise. Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Hawthorne Phillips and Lonny F. Zwiener, Assistant Attorneys General, and A. J. Ca-rubbi, Jr., for respondent in No. 1311, Mise. Mr. Martin, Miss White, and Robert C. Flowers, Douglas H. Chilton, and Mr. Zwiener, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent in No. 1823, Mise. Together with No. 1311, Misc., Ellison v. Texas, and No. 1823, Misc., Jackson v. Beto, Corrections Director, both on petitions for writs of certiorari. No. 1311, Misc., is to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, and No. 1823, Misc., to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments of the courts below are vacated and the cases remanded for reconsideration in the light of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent, for reasons stated in Mr. Justice Black's dissenting opinion in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 532. Mr. Justice White dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 540.