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.
Douglas et al. v. California, 1962 — 370 U.S. 930 · caselaw · US
General
Douglas et al. v. California
370 U.S. 930·Supreme Court of the United States·1962
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. 476.
Douglas et al. v. California.
Argued April 17, 1962.
Burton Marks and Marvin M. Mitchelson argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners. Jack Goertzen, Deputy Attorney General of California, and William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With them on the brief was Stanley Mosk, Attorney General.
[MAJORITY]
Certiorari, 368 U. S. 815, to the Supreme Court of California.
This case is restored to the calendar for reargument.