COX v. KANSAS, 376 U.S. 191 (1964)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
COX v. KANSAS, 376 U.S. 191 (1964) 376 U.S. 191COX v. KANSAS.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
KANSAS.
No. 453, Misc.
Decided February 17, 1964.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.
Reported below: 191 Kan. 326, 456, 380 P.2d 316, 381 P.2d 704.
Petitioner pro se.
William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, 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 Kansas for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, and Daegele v. Kansas, 375 U.S. 1.
Opinions
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
No. 453, Misc.
Decided February 17, 1964.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. Reported below: 191 Kan. 326, 456, 380 P.2d 316, 381 P.2d 704. Petitioner pro se. William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, 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 Kansas for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, and Daegele v. Kansas, 375 U.S. 1. Page 376 U.S. 191, 192
U.S. Supreme Court
COX v. KANSAS, 376 U.S. 191 (1964) 376 U.S. 191 COX v. KANSAS.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
No. 453, Misc.
Decided February 17, 1964.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. Reported below: 191 Kan. 326, 456, 380 P.2d 316, 381 P.2d 704. Petitioner pro se. William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, 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 Kansas for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, and Daegele v. Kansas, 375 U.S. 1. Page 376 U.S. 191, 192
Search This Case
