Morris v. Schoonfield

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 399 U.S. 508, 26 L. Ed. 2d 773, 90 S. Ct. 2232, 1970 U.S. LEXIS 10, SCDB 1969-135

Decision Date: 6/29/1970

Docket Number: No. 782

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508, 26 L. Ed. 2d 773, 90 S. Ct. 2232, 1970 U.S. LEXIS 10, SCDB 1969-135 (1970)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1970

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 1% most-cited · cited by 100 decisions

100

Citing decisions

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

La. Ct. App.14

5th Cir.5

La.4

Ohio3

S.D. Tex.3

Wis.3

Most recently cited by10

2024Johnson 229891 v. Miniard W.D. Mich.
2021Beck v. Elmore County Idaho
2017ODonnell v. Harris County S.D. Tex.
2016Noel v. State Fla.
2013Noel v. State Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2012De Luna v. Hidalgo County S.D. Tex.
2009State v. Langlinais La. Ct. App.
2007State v. Ramel Wis. Ct. App.
2001(2001) Md. Att'y Gen.
1996State v. Goffe Conn. App. Ct.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

MORRIS et al. v. SCHOONFIELD, WARDEN, et al.

Judges

Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
with whom Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall join,

Attorneys

Robert G. Fisher argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Aaron M. Schreiber, Elsbeth Levy Bothe, and Melvin L. Wulf.
George L. Russell, Jr., argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Francis B. Burch, Attorney-General of Maryland, Alfred J. O’Ferrall III, Assistant Attorney General, Ambrose T. Hartman, and Roger C. Duncan.

majority Per Curiam.

We noted probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument with Williams v. Illinois, ante, p. 235, decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in Williams, that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in Williams v. Illinois, supra.

Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

397 U. S. 960.

Chapter 147 of the 1970 Laws of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970).