HERRERA
v.
HEINZE, WARDEN

U.S. | 1963-10-14
No. 82
Mr. Justice Harlan, for the reasons stated in Daegele v. Kansas, ante, p. 1, would have withheld disposition of this petition for certiorari until the disposition, after argument, of that case.
375 U.S. 26 Supreme Court of the United States (1963) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 11 L. Ed. 2d 44 · 84 S. Ct. 90 · 1963 U.S. LEXIS 535 · SCDB 1963-010
Cited by 2 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 California for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.

Mr. Justice Harlan, for the reasons stated in Daegele v. Kansas, ante, p. 1, would have withheld disposition of this petition for certiorari until the disposition, after argument, of that case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Henry v. City of Rock Hill, 376 U.S. 776 (U.S. 1964)
    …e 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 Supreme Court examined Edwards and the later case of Fields v. South [*777] Carolina, 375 U. S. 44, found them not controlling, and reaffirmed the convictions. In its opinion on the remand…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw