DAEGELE
v.
KANSAS

U.S. | 1963-10-14
No. 72
375 U.S. 1 Supreme Court of the United States (1963) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 84 S. Ct. 89 · 11 L. Ed. 2d 44 · 1963 U.S. LEXIS 499 · SCDB 1963-009
Cited by 27 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Kansas for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.

For reasons expressed in his dissenting opinion in No. 16, Misc., Pickelsimer v. Wainwright, post, p. 3, and related cases, Mr. Justice Harlan would set this case for argument of the question whether Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353, should be applied retroactively.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Henry v. City of Rock Hill, 376 U.S. 776 (U.S. 1964)
    …229.” 375 U. S. 6. That has been our practice in analogous situations where, not certain that the case was free from all obstacles to reversal on an intervening precedent, we remand the case to the state court for reconsideration. Daegele v. Kansas, 375 U. S. 1; Pickelsimer v. Wainwright, 375 U. S. 2; Newsome v. North Carolina, 375 U. S. 21; Shockey v. Illinois, 375 U. S. 22; Ausbie v. California, 375 U. S. 24; Herrera v. Heinze, 375 U. S. 26; Barnes v. North Carolina, 375 U. S. 28. The South Carolina Supr…
  • Brown v. The United States, 396 F.2d 989 (Ct. Cl. 1968)
    …i dismissed by stipulation, 389 U.S. 1011, 88 S.Ct. 583, 19 L.Ed.2d 613 (1967); Cooper v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 277 (1967); Harris v. United States, 177 Ct.Cl. 538 (1966); Imhoff v. United States, 177 Ct.Cl. 1 (1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 844, 84 S.Ct. 89, 19 L.Ed.2d 109 (1967) ; Hoppock v. United States, 176 Ct.Cl. 1147 (1966); Wood v. United States, 176 Ct.Cl. 737 (1966); Powers v. United States, 176 Ct.Cl. 388 (1966); Hoffman v. United States, 175 Ct.Cl. 457 (1966); Walters v. United States, 358 F…
    1 / 2
  • Willeford v. Estelle, 637 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1981)
    …de that, in the light of the principles enunciated in Hicks v. Oklahoma, subsequent to the dismissal below, the district court was in error in dismissing this application for post-conviction relief, although successive, see Sanders v. United States, 375 U.S. 1, 15-17, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1077-78, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963). Accordingly, the order of the district court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED.…

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw