Holmes v. California Et Al., 372 U.S. 710 (1963).

Holmes v. California Et Al., 372 U.S. 710 (1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite

neutral Cited (no substantive treatment) 0.5 score

14 citation events across 2 distinct courts.

Treatment classes

Mentioned in passing 14

Treatment by court

calctapp		0R/0Y/0G	8
mich		0R/0Y/0G	6

Frequently cited alongside

#1	green	Douglas	co-cited 4×
#2	green	Mapp	co-cited 3×

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…

Nathan Boyd Holmes
v.
California

70 M.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Apr 15, 1963.

372 U.S. 710

83 S. Ct. 1020

10 L. Ed. 2d 126

1963 U.S. LEXIS 1815

Google Scholar ↗ | CourtListener ↗

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

Clark, Douglas, Harlan, Per Curiam, White.

Cited by 4 opinions | Published

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 opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U. S., at 358, 360. Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.