IOANNOU
v.
NEW YORK ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court denied the motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing.
Movant sought rehearing based on changed circumstances, specifically a new Supreme Court decision. The Attorney General represented that movant could …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing is denied upon the representation of the Attorney General of New York that the movant may file a new application “to withdraw the funds deposited with the New York City Treasurer” in the light of changed circumstances. See Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U. S. 429; Goldstein v. Cox, 389 U. S. 581.
Mr. Justice Douglas.
Since the only changed circumstances concern the intervening decision of this Court in Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U. S. 429, and since the rationale of that decision applies to custodial statutes such as New York has as well as to escheat statutes like Oregon’s, I would dispose of the case here and now (either after or without oral argument) and not require petitioner to retravel once more the long, arduous, and expensive path from New York’s surrogate court.
Mr. Justice Harlan would deny unconditionally the motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing, substantially for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U. S. 98, 99.
Mr. Justice Fortas and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Lowther v. United States, 455 F.2d 657 (10th Cir. 1972)…count in an indictment is a separate offense and consistency in the verdict is not necessary. Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932); Speers v. United States, 387 F. 2d 698 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied 391 U.S. 956, 88 S.Ct. 1864, '20 L.Ed.2d 871 (1968); Maxfield v. United States, 360 F. 2d 97 (10th Cir. 1966), cert. denied 385 U.S. 830, 87 S.Ct. 67, 17 L.Ed.2d 66 (1966); Burns v. United States, 286 F. 2d 152 (10th Cir. 1961). Furthermore the Jolkovsky transactions involved…
-
United States v. Mac von Roeder, 435 F.2d 1004 (10th Cir. 1970)…ial court not to adequately present a defendant’s theory of the case if the instruction is properly tendered and is supported by the evidence. Speers v. United States, 387 F. 2d 698 (10th Cir.1967), cert. den., Sidary v. United States, 391 U.S. 956, 88 S.Ct. 1864, 20 L.Ed.2d 871 (1968). The issue here is whether or not the evidence and the law support appellant’s theory of the case. We think they do not. All evidence concerning appellant Schreiner indicates his participation in the escape phase of the bank r…
-
United States v. Mason, 440 F.2d 1293 (10th Cir. 1971)…equest for a subpoena of witnesses at government expense is not an absolute right, but rather rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(b); Speers v. United States, 387 F. 2d 698 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 956, 88 S.Ct. 1864, 20 L.Ed.2d 871; Findley v. United States, 380 F. 2d 752 (10th Cir. 1967). Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of the court’s discretion in its denial of the pretrial motions and the record shows no prejudice therefrom. Next appellants cont…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1968)
- United States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1957)
- Goldstein v. COX, 389 U.S. 581 (U.S. 1968)