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.
SMITH v. CALIFORNIA, 1963 — 375 U.S. 259 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
SMITH v. CALIFORNIA
375 U.S. 259·Supreme Court of the United States·1963
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
SMITH v. CALIFORNIA.
No. 72.
Decided December 16, 1963.
Stanley Fleishman and Sam Rosenwein for petitioner.
Roger Amebergh, Philip E. Grey and Wm. E. Doran for respondent.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were filed by Edward de Grazia for Allen et al.; by Thomas M. Thomas for American Library Association, and by Nathan L. Schoichet, A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand for American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.
Charles H. Keating, Jr. for Citizens for Decent Literature, Inc., et al., as amici curiae, in support of respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion of Citizens for Decent Literature, Inc., et al., for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for further consideration in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of California in Zeitlin v. Arnebergh, 59 Cal. 2d 901, 383 P. 2d 152.