Pea v. United States, 930, Misc (1964)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Number: 930, Misc
Visitors: 8
Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Jun. 22, 1964
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 378 U.S. 571 (1964) PEA v. UNITED STATES. No. 930, Misc. Supreme Court of United States. Decided June 22, 1964. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Henry Lincoln Johnson, Jr. for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome Nelson for the United States. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.
Summary: 378 U.S. 571 (1964) PEA v. UNITED STATES. No. 930, Misc. Supreme Court of United States. Decided June 22, 1964. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Henry Lincoln Johnson, Jr. for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome Nelson for the United States. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. ..
More
378 U.S. 571 (1964)
PEA
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 930, Misc.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided June 22, 1964.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
Henry Lincoln Johnson, Jr. for petitioner.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome Nelson for the United States.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court in Jackson v. Denno, ante, p. 368.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Jackson v. Denno, supra.
Source: CourtListener
