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/397/335/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/397/335/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
CRAYCROFT v. FERRALL , 397 U.S. 335 (1970)
397 U.S. 335
Peter CRAYCROFT
v.
William E. FERRALL et al.
No. 718, Misc.
Supreme Court of the United States
March 30, 1970
John Caughlan, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Griswold, for respondents.
On petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Upon consideration of the suggestion of the Solicitor General and upon an examination of the entire record, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded to that court.
The Solicitor General concedes that the administrative remedies that the Court of Appeals held should first be exhausted by the petitioner, have either been exhausted or are nonexistent. The sole remaining question therefore seems to be whether petitioner's failure to seek relief in the Court of Military Appeals precludes consideration of petitioner's claims by the federal courts. While the Solicitor General concedes that resort to that judicial remedy does not preclude consideration of petitioner's claim by the federal courts, there is a conflict among the circuits. It is for consideration of that question, or alternatively the merits, that the case is remanded.[ Craycroft v. Ferrall 397 U.S. 335 (1970) ]
