Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
In Durham, N.C., which has an ordinance requiring racial segregation in public eating places, five Negro students and two white students were convicted of criminal trespass for sitting at a lunch counter where only white people customarily were served and refusing to leave when requested by the manager. Held: A judgment affirming their conviction is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of North Carolina for consideration in the light of Peterson v. City of Greenville, ante, p. 244.
Reported below: 253 N.C. 580, 118 S. E. 2d 47.
Jack Greenberg argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit III, William A. Marsh, Jr., F. B. McKissick, C. O. Pearson, W. G. Pearson, M. Hugh Thompson, William T. Coleman, Jr., William R. Ming, Jr., Louis H. Pollak, Joseph L. Rauh and Herbert O. Reid.
Ralph Moody, Assistant Attorney General of North Carolina, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was T. W. Bruton, Attorney General.
Solicitor General Cox, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Marshall, Ralph S. Spritzer, Louis F. Claiborne, Harold H. Greene, Howard A. Glickstein and Richard K. Berg.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of North Carolina for consideration in the light of Peterson v. City of Greenville, ante, p. 244. Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 600 .
[For opinion of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, see ante, p. 248.] [373 U.S. 375, 376]
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 373 U.S. 375
Docket No: No. 11
Decided: May 20, 1963
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)