Skip to content


Jones Vs. California - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number374 U.S. 501
AppellantJones
RespondentCalifornia
Excerpt:
jones v. california - 374 u.s. 501 (1963) u.s. supreme court jones v. california, 374 u.s. 501 (1963) 374 u.s. 501 jones v. california. on petition for writ of certiorari to the district court of appeal of california, second appellate district. no. 649, misc. decided june 17, 1963. certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. reported below: 204 cal. app. 2d 722, 22 cal. rptr. 499. 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.....
Judgment:
JONES v. CALIFORNIA - 374 U.S. 501 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court JONES v. CALIFORNIA, 374 U.S. 501 (1963) 374 U.S. 501

JONES v. CALIFORNIA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF
CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 649, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1963.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Reported below: 204 Cal. App. 2d 722, 22 Cal. Rptr. 499.

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.

Page 374 U.S. 501, 502




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