Contracts · MBE-tested
HARRIS v. CALIFORNIA et al.
374 U.S. 499·Supreme Court of the United States·1963
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U. S., at 358, 360.
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
HARRIS v. CALIFORNIA et al.
No. 135, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1963.
Petitioner pro se.
Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, and William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, for' respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U. S., at 358, 360.