Skip to content


Bradley Vs. Iowa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number374 U.S. 490
AppellantBradley
Respondentiowa
Excerpt:
..... the appeal is dismissed. treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. page 374 u.s. 490, 491 mays v. california, 374 u.s. 490 (1963) 374 u.s. 490 (1963) "> u.s. supreme court mays v. california, 374 u.s. 490 (1963) 374 u.s. 490 mays v. california. on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of california. no. 871, misc. decided june 17, 1963. certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. reported below: see 205 cal. app. 2d 798, 23 cal. rptr. 605. petitioner pro se. stanley mosk, attorney general of california, and william e. james, assistant attorney general, for respondent. per curiam. the motion.....
Judgment:
BRADLEY v. IOWA - 374 U.S. 490 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court BRADLEY v. IOWA, 374 U.S. 490 (1963) 374 U.S. 490

BRADLEY v. IOWA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA.
No. 934, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1963.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 254 Iowa 211, 116 N. W. 2d 439.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Page 374 U.S. 490, 491


MAYS v. CALIFORNIA, <a href="/100514"> 374 U.S. 490 </a> (1963) 374 U.S. 490 (1963) "> U.S. Supreme Court MAYS v. CALIFORNIA, 374 U.S. 490 (1963) 374 U.S. 490

MAYS v. CALIFORNIA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 871, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1963.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Reported below: See 205 Cal. App. 2d 798, 23 Cal. Rptr. 605.

Petitioner pro se.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, and William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 .

MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S., at 358, 360.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //