Contracts · MBE-tested
United States v. California
377 U.S. 926·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this application and motion.
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
May 18, 1964.
No. 5,
Original.
United States v. California.
Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, for defendant. Movant pro se.
Solicitor General Cox for.the United States in opposition to the motion for leave to file petition for intervention. Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, and Howard S. Goldin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of California in opposition to motion for leave to file petition for intervention and for leave to file brief as amicus curiae.
[MAJORITY]
The joint application for an extension of time for filing answering briefs and for allowance of time for filing reply briefs is granted. Answering briefs shall be filed on or before June 15, 1964, and reply briefs shall be filed on or before July 30, 1964. The motion of Carl Whitson for leave to file a petition for intervention is denied but the alternative motion for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this application and motion.