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.
ATCHLEY v. CALIFORNIA, 1961 — 366 U.S. 207 · caselaw · US
General
ATCHLEY v. CALIFORNIA
366 U.S. 2076 L. Ed. 2d 233·Supreme Court of the United States·1961
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
ATCHLEY v. CALIFORNIA.
No. 95.
Argued April 25, 1961.
Decided May 1, 1961.
Rosalie S. Asher argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
Doris H. Maier, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the briefs was Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record, we conclude that the totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing the case here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.