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.
Finch et al. v. California, 1964 — 377 U.S. 990 · caselaw · US
General
Finch et al. v. California
377 U.S. 990·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
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. 553.
Finch et al. v. California.
Petitioners pro se.
Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Norman H. Sokolow, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.