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.
JOHNSON et ux. v. CALIFORNIA, 1963 — 372 U.S. 703 · caselaw · US
General
JOHNSON et ux. v. CALIFORNIA
372 U.S. 703·Supreme Court of the United States·1963
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
JOHNSON et ux. v. CALIFORNIA.
No. 781.
Decided April 15, 1963.
Leslie W. Irving and Scott D. Kellogg for appellants. Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, Howard S. Goldin, Assistant Attorney General, and N. B. Peek and Warren J. Abbott, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.