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.
Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 1966 — 385 U.S. 808 · caselaw · US
General
Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco
385 U.S. 808·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
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. 92.
Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco.
Marshall W. Krause, Donald M. Cahen and Lawrence Speiser for appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Gloria F. DeHart, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Probable jurisdiction noted.