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

WILLNER v. COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS, APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT (1963)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
WILLNER v. COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS, APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Term: 1962
Important Dates
Argued: February 21, 1963
Decided: May 13, 1963
Outcome
Reversed
Vote
7-2
Majority
Hugo BlackWilliam DouglasEarl WarrenByron White
Concurring
William BrennanArthur GoldbergPotter Stewart
Dissenting
Tom ClarkJohn Harlan II

WILLNER v. COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS, APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 13, 1963. The case was argued before the court on February 21, 1963.

In a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the New York State Appellate 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: Due Process - due process: hearing or notice (other than as pertains to government employees or prisoners' rights)
  • Petitioner: Attorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: State commission, board, committee, or authority
  • Respondent state: New York
  • Citation: 373 U.S. 96
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Cert
  • 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