Home/Supreme Court/Cooper v. Pate

Cooper v. Pate

378 U.S. 546, 84 S. Ct. 1733, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1030, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 832
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJune 22, 1964
Docket1134 M
StatusPublished
Cited by478 cases

This text of 378 U.S. 546 (Cooper v. Pate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S. Ct. 1733, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1030, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 832 (1964).

Opinion

378 U.S. 546 (1964)

COOPER
v.
PATE, WARDEN.

No. 1134, Misc.

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided June 22, 1964.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

Alex Elson and Bernard Weisberg for petitioner.

William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Raymond S. Sarnow and Edward A. Berman, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.

The petitioner, an inmate at the Illinois State Penitentiary, brought an action under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 and 42 U. S. C. § 1983, § 1979 of the Revised Statutes, alleging that solely because of his religious beliefs he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners. The District Court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 324 F. 2d 165 (C. A. 7th Cir.). We reverse the judgment below. Taking as true the allegations of the complaint, as they must be on a motion to dismiss, the complaint stated a cause of action and it was error to dismiss it. See Pierce v. LaVallee, 293 F. 2d 233 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Sewell v. Pegelow, 291 F. 2d 196 (C. A. 4th Cir.).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Harnett v. Barr
538 F. Supp. 2d 511 (N.D. New York, 2008)
Roman v. Donelli
616 F. Supp. 2d 299 (N.D. New York, 2007)
Warren v. Goord
476 F. Supp. 2d 407 (S.D. New York, 2007)
Smith v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
422 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (N.D. Georgia, 2006)
Woods v. Southern Co.
396 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (N.D. Georgia, 2005)
Mitchell v. Home
377 F. Supp. 2d 361 (S.D. New York, 2005)
Parker v. Brush Wellman, Inc.
377 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (N.D. Georgia, 2005)
Tornheim v. Eason
348 F. Supp. 2d 209 (S.D. New York, 2004)
Collin v. Securi International
322 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D. Connecticut, 2004)
Gill v. Hoadley
261 F. Supp. 2d 113 (N.D. New York, 2003)
5th Bedford Pines Apartments, Ltd. v. Brandon
262 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (N.D. Georgia, 2003)
Hampton Bays Connections, Inc. v. Duffy
212 F.R.D. 119 (E.D. New York, 2003)
Aiken v. Nixon
236 F. Supp. 2d 211 (N.D. New York, 2002)
Ribot-Carino v. Laboy
196 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Puerto Rico, 2002)
In Re JDN Realty Corp. Securities Litigation
182 F. Supp. 2d 1230 (N.D. Georgia, 2002)
United States v. Portrait of Wally
105 F. Supp. 2d 288 (S.D. New York, 2000)
Banco Surinvest, SA v. SunTrust Bank, Atlanta
78 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (N.D. Georgia, 1999)
Henkin v. AT & T CORP.
80 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (N.D. Georgia, 1999)
Sutton v. Stewart
22 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (D. Arizona, 1998)
Provident Mutual Life Insurance v. City of Atlanta
864 F. Supp. 1274 (N.D. Georgia, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
378 U.S. 546, 84 S. Ct. 1733, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1030, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-pate-scotus-1964.