KING v. ELLIS, 364 U.S. 445 (1960)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

KING v. ELLIS, 364 U.S. 445 (1960)

364 U.S. 445

KING v. ELLIS, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 4, Misc.
Decided November 21, 1960.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Petitioner pro se.

Will Wilson, Attorney General of Texas, and Leon F. Pesek and Linward Shivers, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for a full hearing. Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674.

STATHAM v. CALIFORNIA, <a href="/cases/federal/us/364/445/case.html">364 U.S. 445</a> (1960) 364 U.S. 445 (1960) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

STATHAM v. CALIFORNIA, 364 U.S. 445 (1960)

364 U.S. 445

STATHAM v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT. No. 239, Misc.
Decided November 21, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 176 Cal. App. 2d 806, 1 Cal. Rptr. 767.

Carl Q. Christol for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 364 U.S. 445, 446




U.S. Supreme Court

KING v. ELLIS, 364 U.S. 445 (1960)

364 U.S. 445

KING v. ELLIS, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 4, Misc.
Decided November 21, 1960.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Petitioner pro se.

Will Wilson, Attorney General of Texas, and Leon F. Pesek and Linward Shivers, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for a full hearing. Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674.

STATHAM v. CALIFORNIA, <a href="/cases/federal/us/364/445/case.html">364 U.S. 445</a> (1960) 364 U.S. 445 (1960) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

STATHAM v. CALIFORNIA, 364 U.S. 445 (1960)

364 U.S. 445

STATHAM v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT. No. 239, Misc.
Decided November 21, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 176 Cal. App. 2d 806, 1 Cal. Rptr. 767.

Carl Q. Christol for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 364 U.S. 445, 446

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.