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.
Hall v. Pinto, Prison Superintendent; Walker v. Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, et al.; McIntosh v. United States, 1965 — 382 U.S. 875 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Hall v. Pinto, Prison Superintendent; Walker v. Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, et al.; McIntosh v. United States
382 U.S. 875·Supreme Court of the United States·1965
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.
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. 580,
No. 968,
No. 1106,
Misc.,
October Term, 1964.
Misc.,
October Term, 1964.
Misc.,
October Term, 1964.
Hall v. Pinto, Prison Superintendent, Walker v. Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, et al., McIntosh v. United States,
[MAJORITY]
381 U. S. 930;
381 U. S. 932; and
381 U. S. 947. Petitions for rehearing denied.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.