SMITH v. CROUSE, 378 U.S. 584 (1964)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

SMITH v. CROUSE, 378 U.S. 584 (1964)

378 U.S. 584

SMITH v. CROUSE, WARDEN.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
No. 915, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.

Certiorari granted and judgment reversed.

Reported below: 192 Kan. 171, 386 P.2d 295.

Petitioner pro se.

William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, and J. Richard Foth, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.

In my opinion the question whether Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, should be given retroactive application is deserving of plenary consideration. Cf. my dissenting opinion in LaVallee v. Durocher, 377 U.S. 998.

Page 378 U.S. 584, 585

 


U.S. Supreme Court

SMITH v. CROUSE, 378 U.S. 584 (1964)

378 U.S. 584

SMITH v. CROUSE, WARDEN.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
No. 915, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.

Certiorari granted and judgment reversed.

Reported below: 192 Kan. 171, 386 P.2d 295.

Petitioner pro se.

William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, and J. Richard Foth, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.

In my opinion the question whether Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, should be given retroactive application is deserving of plenary consideration. Cf. my dissenting opinion in LaVallee v. Durocher, 377 U.S. 998.

Page 378 U.S. 584, 585

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.