JACKSON v. OLIVER, 391 U.S. 602 (1968)

Syllabus

U.S. Supreme Court

JACKSON v. OLIVER, 391 U.S. 602 (1968) 391 U.S. 602

JACKSON v. OLIVER, WARDEN.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 547, Misc.
Decided June 3, 1968.

Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Edsel W. Haws and Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Peyton v. Rowe, ante, p. 54.


391 U.S. 602 (1968) 391 U.S. 602 (1968) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

HEYMAN v. MICHIGAN, 391 U.S. 602 (1968) 391 U.S. 602


Opinions

U.S. Supreme Court

JACKSON v. OLIVER, 391 U.S. 602 (1968) 391 U.S. 602 JACKSON v. OLIVER, WARDEN.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 547, Misc.
Decided June 3, 1968.

Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Edsel W. Haws and Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Peyton v. Rowe, ante, p. 54.


391 U.S. 602 (1968) 391 U.S. 602 (1968) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

HEYMAN v. MICHIGAN, 391 U.S. 602 (1968) 391 U.S. 602 HEYMAN v. MICHIGAN.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 1099, Misc.
Decided June 3, 1968.

Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Peyton v. Rowe, ante, p. 54.

Page 391 U.S. 602, 603