Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute Archives logo
| HOME | HISTORY | PUBLICATIONS | DOCKETS | FINDING AIDS |

CIVIL LIBERTIES DOCKET
Vol. XIII
1967-1968
Search in this volume

Case Number: 
Enter a specific case number or use * as wildcard, e.g., 303.15, 303.*

Case Title: 
Enter keywords from the title of a case, e.g., carpenters union

Case Description: 
Enter keywords from the description of a case, e.g., segregation school
   
SOURCE MATERIALS

All of the publications listed on pages ix-xi were clipped for reports of cases on constitutional questions.

A letter was written to the clerk of the court where the case was apparently pending. Court clerks were extremely cooperative in answering our many queries, although a few found it impossible to do so because of lack of man-power. (If you can help check the status of cases in your area for the next issue, please let us know.)

A letter was also written to any lawyer whose name appeared in any clipping. He was asked to supply the basic information concerning the case, and to send a copy of any complaint, memo, brief, or other papers to help us report the case in the DOCKET. These materials were then given to the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Library for use by lawyers and others. (If you would like to borrow pleadings or briefs in DOCKET cases, write to the Library, 1715 Francisco Street, Berkeley 94703.)

Letters were also written to about 3,500 attorneys whose cases were reported in previous issues of the DOCKET, asking whether they were handling any cases which should be reported in this volume, or whether they knew of such cases. Unfortunately, the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice was unable to answer queries concerning the status of cases in which it is a party.

The editor attended numerous bar association functions, asking lawyers to indicate the status of their pending cases.

All US Supreme Court cases were checked, including cases filed in forma pauperis. All cases in which the Court wrote an opinion in 1967 are reported. If the Court declined to hear a case, it is only reported if it seems particularly significant.

Admittedly many constitutional law cases were missed by using only these methods. In the next volume, we hope to include a complete check of cases reported in FSupp and F2d (see Abbreviations, page xiv). However carrying out these six steps overtaxed the limited funds and staff of the DOCKET. If you can assist us in any way in preparing the next volume, with funds, information, or volunteer time, we will be most appreciative, and so will our hundreds of subscribers.