Case: PHILLIPS et vir v. CALIFORNIA
Abbreviation: Phillips v. California
Decision Date: 1967-02-27
Docket Number: No. 684
Citation: 386 U.S. 212
Volume: 386
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: PHILLIPS et vir v. CALIFORNIA.
Judges: Mr. Justice Black and'Mr. Justice Clark are of the opinion that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, supra.
Pages: 212–212

Head Matter:
PHILLIPS et vir v. CALIFORNIA.
No. 684,
Mise.
Decided February 27, 1967.
Appellants pro se.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and S. Clark Moore, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The •judgment is reversed. Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18.
Mr. Justice Black and'Mr. Justice Clark are of the opinion that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, supra.
Mr. Justice Harlan would affirm the judgment below for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Chapman v. California, supra, at 45.