green
Positive treatment
3.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Herman Lee Kindred v. State
XIV; see Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 212, 223-26 , 87 S. Ct. 988, 993-95 , 18 L.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Miloszar
See Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431 , cert. denied, 386 U.S. 943 , 87 S.Ct. 977 , 17 L.Ed.2d 874 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. Nasrallah
Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. Rivas, 289 So.2d 432, 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); accord Americana of Puerto Rico v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431 (3d Cir.1966), cert. denied sub nom., Kaplus v. Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc., 386 U.S. 943 , 87 S.Ct. 977 , 17 L.Ed.2d 874 (1967); Rocca v. Royal Bank of Canada, P.R., Inc., 726 F.Supp. 15 (D.P.R. 1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Seitlin & Co. v. Doebler
See Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431 (3d Cir.1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 943 , 87 S.Ct. 977 , 17 L.Ed.2d 874 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Municipality of San Juan
(2×)
See Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431 (3 Cir. 1966), cert. den. 386 U.S. 943 , 87 S.Ct. 977 , 17 L.Ed.2d 874 . *546 III We turn now to the merits of this case.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Maldonado-Burgos
Moreno Rios v. United States, 256 F.2d 68, 72 (1st Cir.1958); see also Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431 (3d Cir.1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 943 , 87 S.Ct. 977 , 17 L.Ed.2d 874 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mpiliris v. Hellenic Lines, Limited
See, e. g., Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, (3rd Cir. 1966) 368 F.2d 431 , cert. den., 386 U.S. 943 , 87 S.Ct. 977 , 17 L.Ed.2d 874 (1967); Szantay v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 349 F.2d 60 (4th Cir. *873 1965); Wise v. Berman, 282 F.Supp. 282 (D.C.Fla.1967); Abele v. A. L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PHILLIPS Et Vir
v.
CALIFORNIA
v.
CALIFORNIA
684 M.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 10, 1967.
Appellants pro se., Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and S. Clark Moore, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
Black, Clark, California.
Cited by 14 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The •judgment is reversed. Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18.
Mr. Justice Black and'Mr. Justice Clark are of the opinion that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, supra. Mr. Justice Harlan would affirm the judgment below for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Chapman v. California, supra, at 45.