Smith v. Crouse
Cases that cite this one
55 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Donnell v. Swenson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1966)
- Commonwealth v. DeSimone (Pa. 1972)
- Jimmy Ray Bonds v. Louis L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections (5th Cir. 1978)
- Jimmy Ray Bonds, Appellant-Petitioner v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation, Appellee-Respondent (5th Cir. 1978)
- Richard Gordon Bannister v. United States (3d Cir. 1971)
- Linton K. Mordecai, Jr. v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1970)
- United States of America Ex Rel. John G. O'Brien C-8019 v. J. F. Maroney, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (3d Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Phillip Andrew Scott (9th Cir. 1970)
- United States of America Ex Rel. Murray Dickerson v. Alfred T. Rundle, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution,philadelphia, Pennsylvania (3d Cir. 1970)
- In re Lopez (Cal. 1965)
- State v. Leroy (Ohio 1972)
- Commonwealth v. Jones (Pa. 1971)
- Commonwealth v. Norman (Pa. 1971)
- Commonwealth v. James (Pa. 1970)
- People v. Campbell (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)
- Porter v. State (Kan. 1966)
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Stevens v. Myers (Pa. 1965)
- In re Care & Treatment of Emerson (Kan. 2017)
- United States v. Lenardo (District Court, D. New Jersey 1976)
- Commonwealth v. Jones (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976)
- Commonwealth v. Walker (Pa. 1975)
- Bailey v. Ault (5th Cir. 1974)
- James Faldon Turnbow v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections (5th Cir. 1973)
- Kenneth H. Schlomann v. R. I. Moseley, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas (10th Cir. 1972)
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
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
In my opinion the question whether Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353, should be given retroactive application is deserving of plenary consideration. Cf. my dissenting opinion in LaVallee v. Durocher, 377 U. S. 998.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.