OVERTON
v.
NEW YORK

U.S. | 1968-10-28
No. 212
Mr. Justice Black dissents and would affirm the judgment of conviction here.
393 U.S. 85 Supreme Court of the United States (1968) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York is vacated, and the case is remanded for further consideration in the light of Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U. S. 543 (1968).

Mr. Justice Black dissents and would affirm the judgment of conviction here.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • McCREARY v. Sigler, 406 F.2d 1264 (8th Cir. 1969)
    …in effect that the occupant has no right to resist the search. The situation is instinct with coercion — albeit eolorably lawful coercion. Where there is coercion there cannot be consent.” Id. at 550, 88 S.Ct. at 1792. See also Overton v. New York, 393 U.S. 85, 89 S.Ct. 252, 21 L.Ed.2d 218 (1968) (per curiam). An officer must have a legal basis for obtaining access to private living quarters under the badge of his office and the authority of the law. The clear logic of this rule is that a search conducte…
  • Hoover v. Beto, 467 F.2d 516 (5th Cir. 1972)
    …herein demonstrate, announced no new or novel constitutional rule ...... *.”); see also Williams v. United States, 1971, 401 U.S. 646, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (announcing the standard of retro-activity). Moreover, in Overton v. New York, 1968, 393 U.S. 85, 89 S.Ct. 252, 21 L.Ed.2d 218 the Supremo Court remanded a case involving a pre-Bumper search for reconsideration in light of Bumper. The district court in this case erred in concluding that Bumper is not retroactive. See Hoover v. Beto, S.D.Tex.196…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw