Pate v. Robinson
383 U.S. 375 · Decided March 7, 1966 · 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
Pate v. Robinson was decided on March 7, 1966 by a vote of 7–2. 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
- 383 U.S. 375 · 86 S. Ct. 836 · 15 L. Ed. 2d 815 · 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2113
- Docket number
- 382
- Decided
- March 7, 1966
- Argued
- January 26, 1966
- 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
- 7–2
- Majority opinion
- Tom C. Clark
- Opinion assigned by
- Earl Warren
- 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)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Dissent | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Majority | |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Abe Fortas | Majority |
Full case caption
Pate, Warden v. Robinson
SCDB identifiers: case 1965-066, docket 1965-066-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, hearing or notice”
- Westbrook v. Arizona
- Armstrong v. Manzo et Ux.
- Willner v. Committee on Character and FitnessLaw held unconstitutional
- Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham
- Schroeder v. City of New YorkLaw held unconstitutional
- In re Green
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Brown v. Louisiana
- Elfbrandt v. RussellLaw held unconstitutional
- Giaccio v. PennsylvaniaLaw held unconstitutional
- Davis v. North Carolina
- Schmerber v. California
- Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- United States v. RomanoLaw held unconstitutional
- Giaccio v. PennsylvaniaLaw held unconstitutional
- Westbrook v. Arizona
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