Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 324 (1953)

U.S. Supreme Court

Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 324 (1953)

Rosenberg v. United States

No. -- , June 18 Special Term, 1953

Decided June 19, 1953

346 U.S. 324

Syllabus

After the stay granted by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS had been vacated by the Court, ante, p. 346 U. S. 273, a motion was made for reconsideration of the question of the Court's power to vacate that stay and that the Court hear oral argument.

Held: motion denied.

U.S. Supreme Court

Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 324 (1953)

Rosenberg v. United States

No. -- , June 18 Special Term, 1953

Decided June 19, 1953

346 U.S. 324

MOTION TO VACATE A STAY

Syllabus

After the stay granted by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS had been vacated by the Court, ante, p. 346 U. S. 273, a motion was made for reconsideration of the question of the Court's power to vacate that stay and that the Court hear oral argument.

Held: motion denied.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for reconsideration of the question of the Court's power to vacate MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' stay order and hear oral argument is denied.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting.

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER desires that it be noted that he too would deny the motion to reconsider the power of this Court to review MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' order to stay the execution, but not because he thinks the matter is free from doubt. See his dissenting opinion in Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U. S. 578, 318 U. S. 590, in connection with Lambert v. Barrett, 157 U. S. 697, and Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U. S. 87.

Disclaimer: 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.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.