UNITED STATES v. MARYLAND FOR THE USE OF MEYER, 382 U.S. 158 (1965)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

UNITED STATES v. MARYLAND FOR THE USE OF MEYER, 382 U.S. 158 (1965)

382 U.S. 158

UNITED STATES v. MARYLAND FOR THE USE OF MEYER ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
No. 543, October Term, 1963. Certiorari denied December 16, 1963. Rehearing denied December 7, 1964. Rehearing and certiorari granted and case decided November 22, 1965.

116 U.S. App. D.C. 259, 322 F.2d 1009, reversed and remanded for further proceedings on unresolved issues in complaint.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, Morton Hollander and David L. Rose for the United States.

Louis G. Davidson, Richard W. Galiher, William E. Stewart, Jr., and Peter J. McBreen for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to file a conditional petition for rehearing is granted and the petition for rehearing is also granted. The order of December 16, 1963, 375 U.S. 954, denying the petition for writ of certiorari is vacated, and the petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed in conformity with our decision in Maryland for the use of Levin et al. v. United States, 381 U.S. 41, and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for further proceedings with respect to the unresolved issues tendered in respondents' bill of complaint.

    It is so ordered.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, believing that a remand is legally unjustified, dissent from that part of the Court's order.

MR. JUSTICE FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 382 U.S. 158, 159




U.S. Supreme Court

UNITED STATES v. MARYLAND FOR THE USE OF MEYER, 382 U.S. 158 (1965)

382 U.S. 158

UNITED STATES v. MARYLAND FOR THE USE OF MEYER ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
No. 543, October Term, 1963. Certiorari denied December 16, 1963. Rehearing denied December 7, 1964. Rehearing and certiorari granted and case decided November 22, 1965.

116 U.S. App. D.C. 259, 322 F.2d 1009, reversed and remanded for further proceedings on unresolved issues in complaint.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, Morton Hollander and David L. Rose for the United States.

Louis G. Davidson, Richard W. Galiher, William E. Stewart, Jr., and Peter J. McBreen for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to file a conditional petition for rehearing is granted and the petition for rehearing is also granted. The order of December 16, 1963, 375 U.S. 954, denying the petition for writ of certiorari is vacated, and the petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed in conformity with our decision in Maryland for the use of Levin et al. v. United States, 381 U.S. 41, and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for further proceedings with respect to the unresolved issues tendered in respondents' bill of complaint.

    It is so ordered.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, believing that a remand is legally unjustified, dissent from that part of the Court's order.

MR. JUSTICE FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 382 U.S. 158, 159

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.