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. United States; and Bowden v. United States, 1964 — 377 U.S. 954 · caselaw · US
General
Smith v. United States; and Bowden v. United States
377 U.S. 954·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. 973,
No. 974,
Misc.
Misc.
Smith v. United States; and Bowden v. United States.
Petitioner pro se in No. 973, Mise.
Bernard Margolius for petitioner in No. 974, Mise.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Sidney M. Glazer for the United States.
[MAJORITY]
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 117 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 324 F. 2d 879.