The Michel v. Louisiana case in 1955 revolved around the issue of whether a state court's denial of a motion for continuance, filed by defense counsel on the day of trial due to inadequate time for preparation, violated the Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants were charged with criminal conspiracy under Louisiana law and their attorneys requested more time to prepare after receiving only five days' notice before trial. The Supreme Court held that while it is essential in our system that there be an opportunity for full hearing according to established modes of procedure, this does not mean that every denial of a request for more time violates due process or equal protection principles. It was found that given all circumstances including seriousness and complexity of charges, experience and competence level among defense lawyers involved as well as prosecution’s readiness; such short notice did not constitute unfair surprise nor impede adequate preparation thus no constitutional rights had been infringed upon.

In the dissenting opinion for Michel v. Louisiana, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing only five days for filing an appeal in criminal cases was fundamentally unfair and violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that such a short time frame could easily lead to miscarriages of justice, particularly in complex cases or those involving defendants with limited resources or legal knowledge. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on precedent from civil rather than criminal cases and their failure to consider whether this rule might disproportionately impact certain groups more than others. In his view, ensuring fair access to appeals is essential for maintaining public confidence in the judicial system and safeguarding individual liberties against potential abuses of power by government authorities.