PEREZ v. CALIFORNIA, 395 U.S. 208 (1969)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

PEREZ v. CALIFORNIA, 395 U.S. 208 (1969)

395 U.S. 208

PEREZ v. CALIFORNIA.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 39.
Argued November 14, 1968.
Decided May 26, 1969.

65 Cal. 2d 615, 422 P.2d 597, dismissed.

Peter G. Fetros, by appointment of the Court, 393 U.S. 812, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

Edsel W. Haws, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, and Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General.

PER CURIAM.

The writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents from the dismissal of the writ.

Page 395 U.S. 208, 209




U.S. Supreme Court

PEREZ v. CALIFORNIA, 395 U.S. 208 (1969)

395 U.S. 208

PEREZ v. CALIFORNIA.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 39.
Argued November 14, 1968.
Decided May 26, 1969.

65 Cal. 2d 615, 422 P.2d 597, dismissed.

Peter G. Fetros, by appointment of the Court, 393 U.S. 812, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

Edsel W. Haws, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, and Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General.

PER CURIAM.

The writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents from the dismissal of the writ.

Page 395 U.S. 208, 209

Oral Argument - November 14, 1968
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.