BULLOCK v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 365 U.S. 292 (1961)

U.S. Supreme Court

BULLOCK v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 365 U.S. 292 (1961)

365 U.S. 292

BULLOCK v. SOUTH CAROLINA.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
No. 78.
Argued January 9, 1961.
Decided February 20, 1961.

The totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing this case here, and the writ of certiorari is dismissed.

Reported below: 235 S. C. 356, 111 S. E. 2d 657.

Matthew J. Perry argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr. and Donald James Sampson.

Robert L. Kilgo argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of South Carolina, Everett N. Brandon, Assistant Attorney General, and S. Norwood Gasque.

PER CURIAM.

After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record which was only partially set forth in the petition for certiorari, we conclude that the totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing the case here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.

Page 365 U.S. 292, 293




U.S. Supreme Court

BULLOCK v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 365 U.S. 292 (1961)

365 U.S. 292

BULLOCK v. SOUTH CAROLINA.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
No. 78.
Argued January 9, 1961.
Decided February 20, 1961.

The totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing this case here, and the writ of certiorari is dismissed.

Reported below: 235 S. C. 356, 111 S. E. 2d 657.

Matthew J. Perry argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr. and Donald James Sampson.

Robert L. Kilgo argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of South Carolina, Everett N. Brandon, Assistant Attorney General, and S. Norwood Gasque.

PER CURIAM.

After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record which was only partially set forth in the petition for certiorari, we conclude that the totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing the case here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.

Page 365 U.S. 292, 293

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.