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.
PHILLIPS v. NEW YORK, 1960 — 362 U.S. 456 · caselaw · US
General
PHILLIPS v. NEW YORK
362 U.S. 4564 L. Ed. 2d 874·Supreme Court of the United States·1960
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
PHILLIPS v. NEW YORK.
No. 497.
Argued April 18, 1960.
Decided April 25, 1960.
Henry W. Schober argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Anthony T. Antinozzi and Frank A. Fritz, Jr.
Joseph I. Heneghan argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Manuel W. Levine.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam. .]
Per Curiam. .
After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record which was only partially set forth in the petition for certiorari, 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 as improvidently granted.