MARCHESE v. UNITED STATES, 374 U.S. 101 (1963)

U.S. Supreme Court

MARCHESE v. UNITED STATES, 374 U.S. 101 (1963)

374 U.S. 101

MARCHESE v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 362.
Decided June 10, 1963.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Reported below: 304 F.2d 154.

Russell E. Parsons and Sol C. Berenholtz for petitioner.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Philip R. Monahan for the United States et al.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for reconsideration in light of Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would deny certiorari on the basis of their dissent in Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S., at 23.

Page 374 U.S. 101, 102




U.S. Supreme Court

MARCHESE v. UNITED STATES, 374 U.S. 101 (1963)

374 U.S. 101

MARCHESE v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 362.
Decided June 10, 1963.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Reported below: 304 F.2d 154.

Russell E. Parsons and Sol C. Berenholtz for petitioner.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Philip R. Monahan for the United States et al.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for reconsideration in light of Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would deny certiorari on the basis of their dissent in Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S., at 23.

Page 374 U.S. 101, 102

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.