Lambert v. California
355 U.S. 225 · Decided December 16, 1957 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Lambert v. California was decided on December 16, 1957 by a vote of 5–4. The Court reversed the lower court's decision. Justice William O. Douglas wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, hearing or notice” in the Due Process area. SCDB records that the Court declared a municipal or other local ordinance unconstitutional.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 355 U.S. 225 · 78 S. Ct. 240 · 2 L. Ed. 2d 228 · 1957 U.S. LEXIS 3
- Docket number
- 47
- Decided
- December 16, 1957
- Argued
- April 3, 1957
- Reargued
- October 16, 1957
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- William O. Douglas
- Opinion assigned by
- Earl Warren
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, hearing or notice
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Held unconstitutional
- A municipal or other local ordinance
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Majority | |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Harold H. Burton | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Majority | |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Dissent | |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Charles E. Whittaker | Dissent |
Full case caption
Lambert v. California
SCDB identifiers: case 1957-024, docket 1957-024-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, hearing or notice”
- Walker v. City of HutchinsonLaw held unconstitutional
- Covey v. Town of SomersLaw held unconstitutional
- Sublett v. Adams
- Dusky v. United States
- Oyler v. Boles
- In re Green
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
- Alcorta v. Texas
- Thomas v. Arizona
- Payne v. Arkansas
- Sweezy v. New Hampshire
- Chessman v. Teets
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
- United States v. Dow
- United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co.
- Hanson v. Denckla
- Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error