Supreme Court of the United States, 1967

Fox v. Oregon

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 12, 1967 · Black, Harlan, Stewart

388 U.S. 466; 87 S. Ct. 2129; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1324; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1119 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision.

Holbert v. Gladden (Or. 1969)
Zedekiah Suggs v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1968)
State v. Fox (Or. 1968)
Berghoff v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1989)
Martinez v. United States (District Court, W.D. Texas 1987)
United States v. Ray L. Corona and Rafael L. Corona (11th Cir. 1986)
Bosco v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (District Court, N.D. Texas 1985)
United States v. Stephanie Kay Stearns, United States of America v. Buck Duane Walker, AKA Roy A. Allen (9th Cir. 1983)
United States v. Loan Kim Barker (9th Cir. 1982)
United States v. Eddie Lee Davis and Pearlie Mae Davis (10th Cir. 1978)
In re Charles Stanley Bonk, a Witness Before the Special March 1974 Grand Jury (7th Cir. 1975)
State v. Dye (N.J. 1972)
McNeal v. Collier (District Court, N.D. Mississippi 1972)
Kropp v. Douglas Aircraft Co. (District Court, E.D. New York 1971)
United States v. Thermon McKnight (7th Cir. 1970)
John Patrick George Haslam III v. United States (9th Cir. 1970)
Quillien v. Leeke (District Court, D. South Carolina 1969)
Marival, Inc. v. Planes, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1969)
Morris v. Schoonfield (District Court, D. Maryland 1969)
Manuel Chavez AKA Joe Paiz v. United States (9th Cir. 1967)

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 and the petition for a writ of certiorari are- granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Oregon for further consideration in light of Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied.

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