DREWS ET AL.
v.
MARYLAND
DREWS ET AL.
MARYLAND
378 U.S. 547
Supreme Court of the United States (1964)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 12 L. Ed. 2d 1032 · 84 S. Ct. 1900 · 1964 U.S. LEXIS 833 · SCDB 1963-173
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Maryland for consideration in light of Griffin v. Maryland, ante, p. 130, and Bell v. Maryland, ante, p. 226.
Mr. Justice Douglas would reverse outright on the basis of the views expressed in his opinion in Bell v. Maryland, ante, p. 242.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bachellar v. Maryland, 397 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1970)…Code, Art. 27, § 123 (c) (Supp. 1969). Both elements of the instruction were based on the Maryland Court of Appeals’ construction of § 123 in Drews v. Maryland, 224 Md. 186, 192, 167 A. 2d 341, 343-344 (1961), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 378 U. S. 547 (1964), reaffirmed on remand, 236 Md. 349, 204 A. 2d 64 (1964), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 381 U. S. 421 (1965). The instruction was “that disorderly conduct is the doing or saying or both of that which offends, disturbs, incites or tends to…
-
Drews v. Maryland, 381 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1965)…ctions. 224 Md. 186, 192, 167 A. 2d 341, 343-344. On June 22, 1964, this Court vacated the judgments and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U. S. 130, and Bell v. Maryland, 378 U. S. 226. 378 U. S. 547. On remand, the Court of Appeals, purporting to distinguish Griffin and Bell, reinstated and reaffirmed the prior judgments of conviction, Judge Oppenheimer dissenting. 236 Md. 349, 204 A. 2d 64. 1 cannot concur in the Court’s refusal to review thi…