Supreme Court of the United States, 1967

Hadley v. Massachusetts

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 12, 1967 · Clark, Harlan, Stewart, Municipal, City, Francisco

388 U.S. 464; 87 S. Ct. 2124; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1323; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1117 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Louis M. Nordlinger for appellant., Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of Massachusetts, and Willie J. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Aldan-Pierce v. Mafnas (District Court, Northern Mariana Islands 1988)
Commonwealth v. Porrazzo (Mass. App. Ct. 1987)
Young v. Patukonis (Mass. App. Ct. 1987)
City of Boston v. Ditson (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)
Decoulos v. City of Peabody (Mass. 1971)
Sandoval v. Utah (Supreme Court of the United States 1967)
Commonwealth v. Hadley (Mass. 1966)

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

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for further consideration in light of Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523.

Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent and would affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Clark’s dissenting opinion in Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 387 U. S., at 546.

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