COPELAND v. SECRETARY OF STATE, 378 U.S. 588 (1964)

U.S. Supreme Court

COPELAND v. SECRETARY OF STATE, 378 U.S. 588 (1964)

378 U.S. 588

COPELAND v. SECRETARY OF STATE.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK. No. 1041, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.

Judgment vacated and case remanded.

Reported below: 226 F. Supp. 20.

Leonard B. Boudin and Victor Rabinowitz for appellant.

Solicitor General Cox for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for consideration in light of Aptheker v. Secretary of State, ante, p. 500.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE would affirm the judgment.

Page 378 U.S. 588, 589

 


U.S. Supreme Court

COPELAND v. SECRETARY OF STATE, 378 U.S. 588 (1964)

378 U.S. 588

COPELAND v. SECRETARY OF STATE.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK. No. 1041, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.

Judgment vacated and case remanded.

Reported below: 226 F. Supp. 20.

Leonard B. Boudin and Victor Rabinowitz for appellant.

Solicitor General Cox for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for consideration in light of Aptheker v. Secretary of State, ante, p. 500.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE would affirm the judgment.

Page 378 U.S. 588, 589

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.