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.

Page 394 U.S. 848, 849

 


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

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.