Oyler v. Boles
368 U.S. 448 · Decided February 19, 1962 · 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
Oyler v. Boles was decided on February 19, 1962 by a vote of 5–4. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Tom C. Clark wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, hearing or notice” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 368 U.S. 448 · 82 S. Ct. 501 · 7 L. Ed. 2d 446 · 1962 U.S. LEXIS 1770
- Docket number
- 56
- Decided
- February 19, 1962
- Argued
- December 4, 1961
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- Tom C. Clark
- Opinion assigned by
- Felix Frankfurter
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, hearing or notice
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Dissent | |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Majority | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Dissent | |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Dissent | |
| Justice Charles E. Whittaker | Majority | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority |
Full case caption
Oyler v. Boles, Warden
SCDB identifiers: case 1961-032, docket 1961-032-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, hearing or notice”
- In re Green
- Schroeder v. City of New YorkLaw held unconstitutional
- Willner v. Committee on Character and FitnessLaw held unconstitutional
- Dusky v. United States
- Sublett v. Adams
- Armstrong v. Manzo et Ux.
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Garner v. Louisiana
- Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange CountyLaw held unconstitutional
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania
- Beck v. Washington
- Gallegos v. Colorado
- Taylor v. Louisiana
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania
- Griggs v. Allegheny County
- Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead
- In re Green
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