Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/364/661/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/364/661/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
KIMBROUGH v. UNITED STATES, 364 U.S. 661 (1961)
364 U.S. 661 KIMBROUGH v. UNITED STATES.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.
No. 128.
Argued January 11-12, 1961.
Decided January 16, 1961.
Writ of certiorari dismissed because the record does not present with sufficient clarity the question whether cumulative sentences can validly be imposed upon conviction under the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act for transporting a stolen automobile in interstate commerce and for receiving, concealing and storing the same automobile, in a continuing criminal transaction.
Reported below: 272 F.2d 944.
Edward L. Barrett, Jr. argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Bruce J. Terris argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack.
PER CURIAM.
We brought this case here to consider whether cumulative sentences can validly be imposed upon conviction under the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act for transporting a stolen automobile in interstate commerce and for receiving, concealing, and storing the same automobile, in a continuing criminal transaction. After oral argument and a more thorough consideration of the record than was afforded when the petition for certiorari was granted, we have concluded that this question is not presented with sufficient clarity in this case. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.
