Skip to content


Harris Vs. California - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number374 U.S. 499
AppellantHarris
RespondentCalifornia
Excerpt:
harris v. california - 374 u.s. 499 (1963) u.s. supreme court harris v. california, 374 u.s. 499 (1963) 374 u.s. 499 harris v. california et al. on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of california. no. 135, misc. decided june 17, 1963. certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. reported below: see 199 cal. app. 2d 474, 18 cal. rptr. 708. petitioner pro se. stanley mosk, attorney general of california, and william e. james, assistant attorney general, for respondents. 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, .....
Judgment:
HARRIS v. CALIFORNIA - 374 U.S. 499 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court HARRIS v. CALIFORNIA, 374 U.S. 499 (1963) 374 U.S. 499

HARRIS v. CALIFORNIA ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 135, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1963.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Reported below: See 199 Cal. App. 2d 474, 18 Cal. Rptr. 708.

Petitioner pro se.

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

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.

Page 374 U.S. 499, 500




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