COLEMAN
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1962-04-02
No. 714
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that a response to the petition should be requested under Rule 58 (3).
369 U.S. 842 Supreme Court of the United States (1962) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Full opinion text not available for this case.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Coleman v. United States, 357 F.2d 563 (D.C. Cir. 1965)
    …his conviction. 22 D.C.Code § 2404. This court sitting en banc affirmed in Coleman v. United States, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 210, 295 F. 2d 555, with four judges dissenting in part, cert. denied, 369 U.S. 813, 82 S.Ct. 689, 7 L.Ed.2d 613, rehearing denied, 369 U.S. 842, 82 S.Ct. 870, 7 L.Ed.2d 847. We refer to this decision as Coleman I. While the case was pending in the courts Congress abolished the mandatory death sentence1 for first degree murder in this jurisdiction. 22 D.C.Code § 2404 (Supp. IV, 1965). At the…
  • Coleman v. United States, 334 F.2d 558 (D.C. Cir. 1964)
    …813, 82 S.Ct. 689, 7 L.Ed.2d 613; Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stewart were of the opinion that cer-tiorari should have been granted. . Mr. Justice Douglas was then of the opinion that “a response to the petition” should have been requested (369 U.S. 842, 82 S.Ct. 870, 7 L.Ed.2d 847). . Jones v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 169, 327 F. 2d 867 (en banc, 1963). . Approved March 22, 1962, 76 Stat. 46, D.C.Code § 22-2404 (Supp. II, 1961); so far as pertinent to our problem the amendatory Act reads:…
    1 / 2

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw