MILLER
v.
RHAY, PENITENTIARY SUPERINTENDENT

U.S. | 1966-06-20
No. 1180
384 U.S. 892 Supreme Court of the United States (1966) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

In light of the representations of the Attorney General of Washington and upon an examination of the entire record, the motion to remand is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of its opinion in Dillenburg v. Maxwell, — Wash. 2d —, 413 P. 2d 940.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Brown v. The State of N.J., 395 F.2d 917 (3d Cir. 1968)
    …case. See Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 621, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965), where the Supreme Court, before determining the question of retroactivity, indicated that the petitioner had exhausted his state remedies. . In Miller v. Rhay, 384 U.S. 892, 86 S.Ct. 1920, 16 L.Ed.2d 997 (1966), the question of the retroactive application of Kent to a state juvenile court waiver was presented but the Court remanded without reaching the issue because the state, in Dillenburg v. Maxwell, Wash., 413 P. 2d…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw