Home/Supreme Court/Smith v. Crouse

Smith v. Crouse

378 U.S. 584, 84 S. Ct. 1929, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1039, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 873
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJune 22, 1964
Docket915 M
StatusPublished

This text of 378 U.S. 584 (Smith v. Crouse) 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
Smith v. Crouse, 378 U.S. 584, 84 S. Ct. 1929, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1039, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 873 (1964).

Opinion

378 U.S. 584 (1964)

SMITH
v.
CROUSE, WARDEN.

No. 915, Misc.

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided June 22, 1964.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.

Petitioner pro se.

William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, and J. Richard Foth, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.

In my opinion the question whether Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353, should be given retroactive application is deserving of plenary consideration. Cf. my dissenting opinion in LaVallee v. Durocher, 377 U. S. 998.

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

Related

Douglas v. California
372 U.S. 353 (Supreme Court, 1963)
LaVallee v. Durocher
377 U.S. 998 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Smith v. Crouse
378 U.S. 584 (Supreme Court, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
378 U.S. 584, 84 S. Ct. 1929, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1039, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-crouse-scotus-1964.