CHANCE v. CALIFORNIA, 389 U.S. 89 (1967)

U.S. Supreme Court

CHANCE v. CALIFORNIA, 389 U.S. 89 (1967)

389 U.S. 89

CHANCE v. CALIFORNIA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO. No. 306, Misc.
Decided November 6, 1967.

Certiorari granted; judgment reversed.

Marshall W. Krause for petitioner.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Robert R. Granucci and Michael J. Phelan, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm for the reasons set forth in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, 500-503, and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455.

Page 389 U.S. 89, 90




U.S. Supreme Court

CHANCE v. CALIFORNIA, 389 U.S. 89 (1967)

389 U.S. 89

CHANCE v. CALIFORNIA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO. No. 306, Misc.
Decided November 6, 1967.

Certiorari granted; judgment reversed.

Marshall W. Krause for petitioner.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Robert R. Granucci and Michael J. Phelan, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm for the reasons set forth in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, 500-503, and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455.

Page 389 U.S. 89, 90

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.