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.
Butler v. Michigan, 1956 — 352 U.S. 922 · caselaw · US
General
Butler v. Michigan
352 U.S. 922·Supreme Court of the United States·1956
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. 16.
Butler v. Michigan.
Stanley Fleishman and William B. Murrish for movant.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from the Recorder’s Court of the City pf Detroit, Michigan. (Prob-able jurisdiction noted, 350 TJ. S. 963.) The motion of David S. Alberts for leave to file petition to intervene, or in the alternative, for consolidation of this case with Alberts v. California, No. 61, October Term, 1956, is denied. The movant is granted leave to file a further memorandum in No. 61.