RANDOLPH v. UNITED STATES
389 U.S. 570 (1968)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

RANDOLPH v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 570 (1968)

389 U.S. 570

RANDOLPH v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT
OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. 879.
Decided January 15, 1968.

274 F. Supp. 200, affirmed.

Clyde C. Randolph, Jr., pro se, and Jerry Dee Moize for appellant.

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Weisl, Morton Hollander and Jack H. Weiner for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.


DINIS v. VOLPE, <a href="/cases/federal/us/389/570/case.html">389 U.S. 570</a> (1968) 389 U.S. 570 (1968) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

DINIS v. VOLPE, 389 U.S. 570 (1968)

389 U.S. 570

DINIS ET AL. v. VOLPE, GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS. No. 882.
Decided January 15, 1968.

264 F. Supp. 425, affirmed.

Edmund Dinis, pro se, for other appellants.

Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Howard M. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, and Mark L. Cohen, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Page 389 U.S. 570, 571




Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.