From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Crouse

U.S.
Jun 22, 1964
378 U.S. 584 (1964)

Summary

holding that counsel must be appointed to indigents for purposes of appeal as announced in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 to be retroactive

Summary of this case from Schlomann v. Moseley

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.

No. 915, Misc.

Decided June 22, 1964.

Certiorari granted and judgment reversed.

Reported below: 192 Kan. 171, 386 P.2d 295.

Petitioner pro se.

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


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.


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.


Summaries of

Smith v. Crouse

U.S.
Jun 22, 1964
378 U.S. 584 (1964)

holding that counsel must be appointed to indigents for purposes of appeal as announced in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 to be retroactive

Summary of this case from Schlomann v. Moseley

giving retroactivity to Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811

Summary of this case from United States v. Scott
Case details for

Smith v. Crouse

Case Details

Full title:SMITH v . CROUSE, WARDEN

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jun 22, 1964

Citations

378 U.S. 584 (1964)

Citing Cases

State v. Leroy

(Emphasis added.) And, of course, Douglas in retroactive in effect, under Smith v. Crouse (1964), 378 U.S.…

Donnell v. Swenson

We believe that, as applied to the facts before us, the contention advanced in some quarters that later…