Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

PAUL, DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UNITED STATES (1963)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
PAUL, DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UNITED STATES
Term: 1962
Important Dates
Argued: October 17, 1962
Decided: January 14, 1963
Outcome
Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Hugo BlackWilliam BrennanTom ClarkWilliam DouglasEarl WarrenByron White
Dissenting
Arthur GoldbergJohn Harlan IIPotter Stewart

PAUL, DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UNITED STATES is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 14, 1963. The case was argued before the court on October 17, 1962.

In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part the ruling of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. The case originated from the California Northern U.S. District Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1960s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Warren Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Judicial Power - judicial administration: Supreme Court jurisdiction or authority on appeal or writ of error, from federal district courts or courts of appeals (cf. 753)
  • Petitioner: Governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact
  • Petitioner state: California
  • Respondent type: United States
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 371 U.S. 245
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Appeal
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Earl Warren
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: William Douglas

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as liberal.

See also

External links

Footnotes