Head Vs. California

Head vs California

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-17-1963

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100533

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/100533
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Jun-17-1963
Case Number: 374 U.S. 509
Subject: Contract

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Contract

Key legal issue: Contract

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Head

Respondent

California

Excerpt

head v. california - 374 u.s. 509 (1963) u.s. supreme court head v. california, 374 u.s. 509 (1963) 374 u.s. 509 head v. california. on motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari. no. 872, misc. decided june 17, 1963. motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari denied; certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. reported below: see 208 cal. app. 2d 360, 25 cal. rptr. 124. petitioner pro se. stanley mosk, attorney general of california, william e. james, assistant attorney general, and a. wallace tashima, deputy attorney general, for respondent. per curiam. the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted but the motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari is denied. treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is 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. 509, 1

Full Judgment

HEAD v. CALIFORNIA - 374 U.S. 509 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court HEAD v. CALIFORNIA, 374 U.S. 509 (1963) 374 U.S. 509

HEAD v. CALIFORNIA.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
No. 872, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1963.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari denied; certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Reported below: See 208 Cal. App. 2d 360, 25 Cal. Rptr. 124.

Petitioner pro se.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and A. Wallace Tashima, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted but the motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari is denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is 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. 509, 1

Same Parties Head vs California Same Subject Contract