HARRIS
v.
CALIFORNIA ET AL.

U.S. | 1963-06-17
Nos. 135, Misc.
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.
374 U.S. 499 Supreme Court of the United States (1963) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Palladino, 475 F.2d 65 (1st Cir. 1973)
    …s, 389 F. 2d 200 (8th Cir. 1969), and state courts, e. g., California (In re Giannini, 69 Cal.2d 563, 72 Cal.Rptr. 655, 446 P. 2d 535 (1968); In re Harris, 56 Cal.2d 879, 16 Cal.Rptr. 889, 366 P. 2d 305 (1961), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 374 U.S. 499, 83 S.Ct. 1876, 10 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1963)); Maryland (Dunn v. State Board of Censors, 240 Md. 249, 213 A. 2d 751 (1965)), which have required expert testimony for either of these reasons. For statutory authorization for expert testimony, see Mass. Gen.…
  • Swenson v. Donnell, 382 F.2d 248 (8th Cir. 1967)
    …sed pre-Douglas convictions in light of Douglas. See, e. g., Head v. State of California, 374 U.S. 509, 83 S.Ct. 1883, 10 L.Ed.2d 1047 (1963) ; Jones v. State of California, 374 U.S. 501, 83 S.Ct. 1S78, 10 L.Ed.2d 1045 (1963) ; Harris v. California, 374 U.S. 499, 83 S.Ct. 1870, 10 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1963) ; Tiller v. California, 372 U.S. 771, 83 S.Ct. 1107, 10 L.Ed.2a 140 (1963). . See also Tettamble v. Missouri, 386 U.S. 265, 87 S.Ct. 1034, 18 L.Ed.2d 42 (March 13, 1967), reversing per curiam, State v. Tettamb…
  • Maness v. Swenson, 385 F.2d 943 (8th Cir. 1967)
    …ourt had also reviewed pre-Douglas convictions in the light of Douglas, citing Head v. California, 374 U.S. 509, 83 S.Ct. 1883, 10 L.Ed.2d 1047 (1963) ; Jones v. California, 374 U.S. 501, 83 S.Ct. 1878, 10 L.Ed.2d 1045 (1963) ; Harris v. California, 374 U.S. 499, 83 S.Ct. 1876, 10 L. Ed.2d 1044 (1963) ; Tiller v. California, 372 U.S. 771, 83 S.Ct. 1107, 10 D.Ed.2d 140 (1963). Judge Matthes also noted that the question of retrospective application of Douglas to the Missouri practice of appellate review for i…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw