Supreme Court of the United States, 1963

Head v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 17, 1963 · California, Clark, Harlan, Opinions, Stated, Their

374 U.S. 509 (United States Reports)

Counsel

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

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Head v. California (Supreme Court of the United States 1963)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.