|
|
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
|
|
|
<case id="50719" source="Oyez API" schema="simple-legal-case-xml-v1"><name>Younger v. Gilmore</name><docketNumber>70-9</docketNumber><term>1971</term><court><name>Burger Court (1971-1972)</name><identifier>burger3</identifier><href>https://api.oyez.org/courts/burger3</href></court><parties><firstParty role="Appellant">Evelle J. Younger, et al.</firstParty><secondParty role="Appellee">Robert O. Gilmore, Jr., et al.</secondParty></parties><dates><date type="argued">1971-10-14</date><date type="decided">1971-11-08</date></dates><citation><volume>404</volume><page>15</page><year>1971</year><href>https://api.oyez.org/case_citation/case_citation/14647</href><justia_url>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/15/</justia_url></citation><jurisdiction>Appeal</jurisdiction><facts><html><p>Several indigent California state prisoners filed complaints attacking the constitutionality of the regulations which forbade California prisons from having more than twelve law books in a prison library. On January 10, 1967, the district court consolidated the multiple cases because they contained common questions of law and fact. </p>
|
|
|
<p>The California prisoners moved for the convening of a three-judge district court, but their motion was denied. On appeal the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's order denying a three-judge panel. On May 28, 1970, a three-judge district court granted the plaintiffs relief from the regulation limiting the number of law books in prison libraries. The defendants appealed the district court's decision. </p>
|
|
|
</html><text>Several indigent California state prisoners filed complaints attacking the constitutionality of the regulations which forbade California prisons from having more than twelve law books in a prison library. On January 10, 1967, the district court consolidated the multiple cases because they contained common questions of law and fact.
|
|
|
The California prisoners moved for the convening of a three-judge district court, but their motion was denied. On appeal the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's order denying a three-judge panel. On May 28, 1970, a three-judge district court granted the plaintiffs relief from the regulation limiting the number of law books in prison libraries. The defendants appealed the district court's decision.</text></facts><questions /><conclusion><html><p>In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court. The Court initially postponed the question of jurisdiction pending the hearing of the case on the merits. After hearing the case on its merits, the Court determined that it had jurisdiction and affirmed the lower court's opinion. </p>
|
|
|
</html><text>In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court. The Court initially postponed the question of jurisdiction pending the hearing of the case on the merits. After hearing the case on its merits, the Court determined that it had jurisdiction and affirmed the lower court's opinion.</text></conclusion><advocates><advocate for="for appellants"><name>George R. Nock</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/george_r_nock</href></advocate><advocate for="for appellees"><name>John E. Wahl</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/john_e_wahl</href></advocate></advocates><decisions><decision type="per curiam" winning_party=""><description /><votes majority="7" minority=""><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="2"><justice>William O. Douglas</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_o_douglas</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="4"><justice>Potter Stewart</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/potter_stewart</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="6"><justice>Thurgood Marshall</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/thurgood_marshall</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="3"><justice>William J. Brennan, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_j_brennan_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="5"><justice>Byron R. White</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/byron_r_white</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="1"><justice>Warren E. Burger</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/warren_e_burger</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="7"><justice>Harry A. Blackmun</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/harry_a_blackmun</justice_href></vote></votes></decision></decisions><source><href>https://api.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-9</href><raw_file>D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\json_data\api.oyez.org_cases_1971_70-9.json</raw_file></source></case> |
