BALDONADO v. CALIFORNIA, 366 U.S. 417 (1961)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 366 U.S. 417
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/366/417/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/366/417/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
BALDONADO v. CALIFORNIA, 366 U.S. 417 (1961)
366 U.S. 417 BALDONADO v. CALIFORNIA.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 185.
Argued May 8, 1961.
Decided May 22, 1961.*
[Footnote *] Together with No. 186, Moya v. California, and No. 187, Duncan v. California, also on certiorari to the same Court.
The totality of circumstances disclosed by the records fails to support the substantial due process issues tendered in the petitions for certiorari, and the writs are dismissed.
Reported below: 53 Cal. 2d 803, 819, 824, 350 P.2d 103, 112, 115.
A. L. Wirin argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners in all three cases. Burt M. Henson argued the cause and appeared on the brief for petitioner in No. 186. Arthur Warner argued the cause and appeared on the brief for petitioner in No. 187.
William E. James, Assistant Attorney General of California, argued the cause for respondent in all three cases. With him on the briefs was Stanley Mosk, Attorney General. Roy A. Gustafson also appeared on the brief for respondent in No. 187.
Ben Margolis and Charles B. Stewart, Jr. filed a brief in No. 187 for certain California Chapters of the National Lawyers Guild, as amici curiae, urging reversal.
PER CURIAM.
After hearing oral argument and on due examination of the records, we conclude that the totality of circumstances disclosed fails to support the substantial due process issues tendered in the petitions for certiorari, and so we dismiss the writs.