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.
Mooney v. Smith, Warden, 1938 — 303 U.S. 620 · caselaw · US
General
Mooney v. Smith, Warden
303 U.S. 620·Supreme Court of the United States·1938
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. 738.
Mooney v. Smith, Warden.
February 14, 1938.
Messrs. Frank P. Walsh, John F. Finerty and George T. Davis for petitioner. Messrs. U. S. Webb, Attorney General, and William F. Cleary, Deputy Attorney General, of California, for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California.
The petitioner having withdrawn the motion for leave to proceed on a printed abstract of the record and having moved for time to present a brief in support of a petition for certiorari, the latter motion is granted, and it is ordered that petitioner have thirty days from this date in which to file with this Court and serve "upon respondent a brief in support of the petition for certiorari, and that respondent have thirty days after such filing and service to file with the Court and serve upon petitioner an opposing brief. The parties may refer to the typewritten record in the respective briefs above mentioned. Questions in relation to the preparation and printing of the record or abstracts thereof will be reserved until the coming in of such briefs.