McGRATH v. RHAY, 364 U.S. 279 (1960)

U.S. Supreme Court

McGRATH v. RHAY, 364 U.S. 279 (1960)

364 U.S. 279

McGRATH ET AL. v. RHAY, SUPERINTENDENT, WASHINGTON STATE
PENITENTIARY.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. No. 720.
Decided June 27, 1960.

Judgment vacated and case remanded for determination of specified questions of state law.

Reported below: 54 Wash. 2d 508, 342 P.2d 607.

Petitioners pro se.

John J. O'Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Stephen C. Way, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The respondent's motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari is denied. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is vacated and the case is remanded for determination of the following questions of Washington law now involved in the case: (1) whether the case is moot as a habeas corpus proceeding; and (2) if it is, whether, to avoid mootness, it can properly be treated as an application for some other form of appropriate relief.

Page 364 U.S. 279, 280

 


U.S. Supreme Court

McGRATH v. RHAY, 364 U.S. 279 (1960)

364 U.S. 279

McGRATH ET AL. v. RHAY, SUPERINTENDENT, WASHINGTON STATE
PENITENTIARY.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. No. 720.
Decided June 27, 1960.

Judgment vacated and case remanded for determination of specified questions of state law.

Reported below: 54 Wash. 2d 508, 342 P.2d 607.

Petitioners pro se.

John J. O'Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Stephen C. Way, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The respondent's motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari is denied. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is vacated and the case is remanded for determination of the following questions of Washington law now involved in the case: (1) whether the case is moot as a habeas corpus proceeding; and (2) if it is, whether, to avoid mootness, it can properly be treated as an application for some other form of appropriate relief.

Page 364 U.S. 279, 280

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.