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.
Smith v. California, 1963 — 373 U.S. 901 · caselaw · US
General
Smith v. California
373 U.S. 901·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
No. 812.
Smith v. California.
Stanley Fleishman and Sam Rosenwein for petitioner. Roger Arnebergh, Philip E. Grey and Wm. E. Doran for respondent. Nathan L. Schoichet, A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition. Edward de Grazia for Allen et ah, as amici curiae, in support of the petition.
[MAJORITY]
Appellate Department, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Certiorari granted.