Crow v. California Department of Human Resources Development
Opinion
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded with directions to consider question of mootness in light of Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 (1975), and Indiana Employment Security Division v. Burney, 409 U. S. 540 (1973). See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950). If the court determines that the case is not moot, it should consider whether a three-judge court is required. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528, 543-545 (1974); Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U. S. 379 (1975); cf. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713, 716 (1962). Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
420 U.S. 917 (Crow v. California Department of Human Resources Development) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.