MONTGOMERY v. BURNS, 394 U.S. 848 (1969)
U.S. Supreme Court
MONTGOMERY v. BURNS, 394 U.S. 848 (1969)
394 U.S. 848 MONTGOMERY, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, ET AL.
v. BURNS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 438.
Decided May 5, 1969.
Affirmed.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Elizabeth Palmer and Donald B. Day, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellants.
PER CURIAM.
The motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissents for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE in Shapiro v. Thompson, ante, p. 644.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Shapiro v. Thompson, ante, p. 655.
U.S. Supreme Court
MONTGOMERY v. BURNS, 394 U.S. 848 (1969)
394 U.S. 848 MONTGOMERY, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, ET AL.
v. BURNS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 438.
Decided May 5, 1969.
Affirmed.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Elizabeth Palmer and Donald B. Day, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellants.
PER CURIAM.
The motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissents for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE in Shapiro v. Thompson, ante, p. 644.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Shapiro v. Thompson, ante, p. 655.
Page 394 U.S. 848, 849
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.