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.
Traub v. Connecticut, 1964 — 377 U.S. 960 · caselaw · US
General
Traub v. Connecticut
377 U.S. 960·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.
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. 1219,
Misc.
Traub v. Connecticut.
Petitioner pro se.
John D. LaBelle and Harry W. Hultgren, Jr. for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Motion to use the record in No. 1285, Mise., October Term, 1962, granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut denied.
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.