HEAD v. CALIFORNIA, 374 U.S. 509 (1963)

U.S. Supreme Court

HEAD v. CALIFORNIA, 374 U.S. 509 (1963)

374 U.S. 509

HEAD v. CALIFORNIA.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
No. 872, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1963.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari denied; certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Reported below: See 208 Cal. App. 2d 360, 25 Cal. Rptr. 124.

Petitioner pro se.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and A. Wallace Tashima, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted but the motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari is denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is 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.

Page 374 U.S. 509, 1




U.S. Supreme Court

HEAD v. CALIFORNIA, 374 U.S. 509 (1963)

374 U.S. 509

HEAD v. CALIFORNIA.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
No. 872, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1963.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari denied; certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Reported below: See 208 Cal. App. 2d 360, 25 Cal. Rptr. 124.

Petitioner pro se.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and A. Wallace Tashima, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted but the motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari is denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is 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.

Page 374 U.S. 509, 1

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.