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.
Stassen for President Citizens Committee v. Jordan, Secretary of State of California, 1964 — 377 U.S. 914 · caselaw · US
General
Stassen for President Citizens Committee v. Jordan, Secretary of State of California
377 U.S. 914·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Goldberg dissent.
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
April 24, 1964.
No. 1028.
Stassen for President Citizens Committee v. Jordan, Secretary of State of California.
John Lord O’Brian, Newell W. Ellison and Daniel M. Gribbon for petitioner.
Richard G. Logan on the motion for Herrera. Allan Brotsky on the motion for Burbridge.
[MAJORITY]
The motions of Janice C. Herrera and Thomas N. Bur-bridge, Jr. for leave to file briefs, as amici curiae, are granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Goldberg dissent.
Opinions may be filed in due course. [See post, p. 927.]