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.
McCRARY v. INDIANA, 1960 — 364 U.S. 277 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
McCRARY v. INDIANA
364 U.S. 2774 L. Ed. 2d 1706·Supreme Court of the United States·1960
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
McCRARY v. INDIANA.
No. 417,
Misc.
Decided June 27, 1960.
Petitioner pro se.
Edwin K. Steers, Attorney General of Indiana, and Richard M. Givan, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the writ of certiorari are granted. Petitioner’s attempted appeal to the Supreme Court of Indiana from a denial of relief in a post-conviction coram nobis proceeding was dismissed because of his failure to comply with rules of that court, requiring, inter alia, the filing of a transcript of the trial proceedings. He alleges that the dismissal denied him the equal protection of the laws because he was and is unable to pay for the preparation of such a transcript, see Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12, and that although he attempted to avail himself of the services of the Indiana Public Defender, who is empowered to secure the preparation of such a transcript in paupers’ cases, see Burris’ Indiana Stats. (1956 Repl.), § 13-1401 et seg., that officer declined to assist him. The record before us does not disclose whether these allegations were made to, and passed on by, the Indiana Supreme Court in light of Griffin v. Illinois, supra. Accordingly we vacate the order of dismissal and remand the case to it for further consideration of the appeal.