California v. Hamilton
478 U.S. 1017, 106 S. Ct. 3328, 92 L. Ed. 2d 734, 54 U.S.L.W. 3866, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 2714
Opinion
Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Rose v. Clark, ante, p. 570.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
California v. Hamilton, 478 U.S. 1017, 106 S. Ct. 3328, 92 L. Ed. 2d 734, 54 U.S.L.W. 3866, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 2714 (1986).
478 U.S. 1017 (California v. Hamilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Lynch
237 P.3d 416 (California Supreme Court, 2010)
People v. Hamilton
200 P.3d 898 (California Supreme Court, 2009)
People v. Nicholson
24 Cal. App. 4th 584 (California Court of Appeal, 1994)
Bernard Lee Hamilton v. Daniel Vasquez, Warden of San Quentin the Attorney General of the State of California
17 F.3d 1149 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
People v. White
9 Cal. App. 4th 1062 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)
People v. Watkins
6 Cal. App. 4th 595 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)
People v. Kimble
749 P.2d 803 (California Supreme Court, 1988)
People v. Anderson
742 P.2d 1306 (California Supreme Court, 1987)