DIXON
v.
DUFFY, WARDEN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court continued the cause for a determination from the California Supreme Court regarding the basis of its judgment.
The U.S. Supreme Court previously ordered the cause continued to ascertain if the California judgment rested on state grounds or required federal clai…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Question cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
On November 5,1951, we ordered this cause “continued for such period as will enable counsel for petitioner to secure a determination from the Supreme Court of California as to whether the judgment herein was intended to rest on an adequate independent state ground or whether decision of the federal claim was necessary to the judgment rendered.” 342 U. S. 33, 34 (1951).
We have not yet been advised whether the Supreme Court of California has conducted any further proceedings in this case or has so entered as to become a part of the record, any order, opinion or certificate after November 5, 1951. We do not regard a letter, not apparently a part of the case record, received by the Clerk of this Court on March 31, 1952, signed by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of California as a sufficient “determination” of the question raised in our order of November 5, 1951. Accordingly, the cause is ordered further continued for such period as will enable counsel for petitioner to secure from the Supreme Court of California its official determination as requested in our order of November 5, 1951.
Cause continued.
Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the opinion that the federal question in the case has been fully exposed, dissents.
Mr. Justice Minton took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixon v. Duffy, 344 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1952)…our order of November 5, 1951.” Therefore, on May 12, 1952, we “further continued” the cause on our docket to enable counsel for petitioner to secure from the Supreme Court of California its official determination as requested by our earlier order. 343 U. S. 393. Though some months have now elapsed, we still have received no advice from the Supreme Court of California. We are informed, however, that the California court advised petitioner’s counsel informally that it doubted its jurisdiction to render such…
Authorities Cited
- Dixon v. Duffy, 342 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1951)