SHOCKEY v. ILLINOIS, 375 U.S. 22 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court
SHOCKEY v. ILLINOIS, 375 U.S. 22 (1963) 375 U.S. 22SHOCKEY v. ILLINOIS.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS.
No. 20, Misc.
Decided October 14, 1963.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.
Reported below: 25 Ill. 2d 528, 185 N.E.2d 893.
John R. Snively for petitioner.
William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Illinois for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, for the reasons stated in Daegele v. Kansas, ante, p. 1, would have withheld disposition of this petition for certiorari until the disposition, after argument, of that case.
U.S. Supreme Court
SHOCKEY v. ILLINOIS, 375 U.S. 22 (1963) 375 U.S. 22 SHOCKEY v. ILLINOIS.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 20, Misc.
Decided October 14, 1963.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. Reported below: 25 Ill. 2d 528, 185 N.E.2d 893. John R. Snively for petitioner. William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Illinois for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, for the reasons stated in Daegele v. Kansas, ante, p. 1, would have withheld disposition of this petition for certiorari until the disposition, after argument, of that case. Page 375 U.S. 22, 23
