MARYLAND FOR THE USE OF LEVIN v. UNITED STATES, 382 U.S. 159 (1965)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

MARYLAND FOR THE USE OF LEVIN v. UNITED STATES, 382 U.S. 159 (1964)

382 U.S. 159

MARYLAND FOR THE USE OF LEVIN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
No. 345, October Term, 1964.

Rehearing and motion to remand granted November 22, 1965; 381 U.S. 41, vacated and amended; 329 F.2d 722, modified and remanded for further proceedings on unresolved issues in complaint.

Theodore E. Wolcott for petitioners.

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

Louis G. Davidson, Richard W. Galiher, William E. Stewart, Jr., and Peter J. McBreen, as amici curiae, urging reversal.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for rehearing and the motion to remand for trial on unresolved issues are granted as herein indicated. The judgment of this Court of May 3, 1965, 381 U.S. 41, is vacated, and in lieu thereof the following judgment is entered: "The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is modified to direct that the case be remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for further proceedings with respect to the unresolved issues tendered in petitioners' bill of complaint, and is in all other respects affirmed."

    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. 159, 160




U.S. Supreme Court

MARYLAND FOR THE USE OF LEVIN v. UNITED STATES, 382 U.S. 159 (1964)

382 U.S. 159

MARYLAND FOR THE USE OF LEVIN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
No. 345, October Term, 1964.

Rehearing and motion to remand granted November 22, 1965; 381 U.S. 41, vacated and amended; 329 F.2d 722, modified and remanded for further proceedings on unresolved issues in complaint.

Theodore E. Wolcott for petitioners.

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

Louis G. Davidson, Richard W. Galiher, William E. Stewart, Jr., and Peter J. McBreen, as amici curiae, urging reversal.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for rehearing and the motion to remand for trial on unresolved issues are granted as herein indicated. The judgment of this Court of May 3, 1965, 381 U.S. 41, is vacated, and in lieu thereof the following judgment is entered: "The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is modified to direct that the case be remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for further proceedings with respect to the unresolved issues tendered in petitioners' bill of complaint, and is in all other respects affirmed."

    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. 159, 160

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.