DEARHART v. VIRGINIA, 374 U.S. 498 (1963)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
DEARHART v. VIRGINIA, 374 U.S. 498 (1963) 374 U.S. 498DEARHART v. VIRGINIA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
OF
VIRGINIA. No. 48, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1963.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.
Petitioner pro se.
Reno S. Harp III, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S., at 358, 360.
Opinions
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF
VIRGINIA. No. 48, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1963.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. Petitioner pro se. Reno S. Harp III, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353. MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S., at 358, 360. Page 374 U.S. 498, 499
U.S. Supreme Court
DEARHART v. VIRGINIA, 374 U.S. 498 (1963) 374 U.S. 498 DEARHART v. VIRGINIA.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF
VIRGINIA. No. 48, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1963.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. Petitioner pro se. Reno S. Harp III, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353. MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S., at 358, 360. Page 374 U.S. 498, 499
Search This Case
