Contracts · MBE-tested

PHILLIPS et vir v. CALIFORNIA

386 U.S. 21217 L. Ed. 2d 870·Supreme Court of the United States·1967

Mr. Justice Black and'Mr. Justice Clark are of the opinion that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, supra. · Mr. Justice Harlan would affirm the judgment below for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Chapman v. California, supra, at 45.

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

PHILLIPS et vir v. CALIFORNIA. No. 684, Mise. Decided February 27, 1967. Appellants pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and S. Clark Moore, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The •judgment is reversed. Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18. Mr. Justice Black and'Mr. Justice Clark are of the opinion that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, supra. Mr. Justice Harlan would affirm the judgment below for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Chapman v. California, supra, at 45.