McGann v. United States, 153 (1960)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Number: 153
Visitors: 3
Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Mar. 21, 1960
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 362 U.S. 214 (1960) McGANN v. UNITED STATES. No. 153. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 3, 1960. Decided March 21, 1960. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. By appointment of the Court, 361 U.S. 803 , Thomas Homer Davis argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Theodore George Gilinsky argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey and Beatrice Rosenberg. PER C
Summary: 362 U.S. 214 (1960) McGANN v. UNITED STATES. No. 153. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 3, 1960. Decided March 21, 1960. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. By appointment of the Court, 361 U.S. 803 , Thomas Homer Davis argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Theodore George Gilinsky argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey and Beatrice Rosenberg. PER CU..
More
362 U.S. 214 (1960)
McGANN
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 153.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 3, 1960.
Decided March 21, 1960.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
By appointment of the Court, 361 U.S. 803, Thomas Homer Davis argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Theodore George Gilinsky argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey and Beatrice Rosenberg.
PER CURIAM.
The writ of certiorari was improvidently granted and must be dismissed. When the case was brought here, on the meager documentation which so often is all that is presented by indigent prisoners seeking review on their own behalf, we assumed that a question involving the construction of 28 U.S. C. ยง 2255 called for adjudication. After argument, it became clear that the question of construction is not appropriately presented by the record because petitioner's claim upon the merits was fully considered and decided below, and we find his challenge of that action to be so insubstantial as not to have warranted bringing the case here.
Source: CourtListener
