PHILLIPS v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 212 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court Reports
PHILLIPS v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 212 (1967) 386 U.S. 212PHILLIPS ET VIR v. CALIFORNIA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF
CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 684, Misc.
Decided February 27, 1967.
Certiorari granted; 240 Cal. App. 2d 197, 49 Cal. Rptr. 480, reversed.
Appellants pro se.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and S. Clark Moore, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE CLARK are of the opinion that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, supra.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm the judgment below for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Chapman v. California, supra, at 45.
U.S. Supreme Court Reports
PHILLIPS v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 212 (1967) 386 U.S. 212 (1967) 386 U.S. 212 386 U.S. 212"> PHILLIPS ET VIR v. CALIFORNIA.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF
CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 684, Misc.
Decided February 27, 1967.
Certiorari granted; 240 Cal. App. 2d 197, 49 Cal. Rptr. 480, reversed. Appellants pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and S. Clark Moore, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18. MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE CLARK are of the opinion that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, supra. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm the judgment below for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Chapman v. California, supra, at 45. Page 386 U.S. 212, 213
