Contracts · MBE-tested
SMITH v. CROUSE, WARDEN
378 U.S. 58412 L. Ed. 2d 1039·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
SMITH v. CROUSE, WARDEN.
No. 915, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Petitioner pro se.
William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, and J. Richard Foth, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.
[DISSENT — Mr. Justice Harlan,]
Mr. Justice Harlan,
dissenting.
In my opinion the question whether Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353, should be given retroactive application is deserving of plenary consideration. Cf. my dissenting opinion in LaVallee v. Durocher, 377 U. S. 998.