BOSTICK v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 386 U.S. 479 (1967)

U.S. Supreme Court Reports

BOSTICK v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 386 U.S. 479 (1967) BOSTICK v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 386 U.S. 479 (1967) 386 U.S. 479

BOSTICK v. SOUTH CAROLINA ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
No. 647.
Argued March 20, 1967
Decided March 27, 1967.

247 S. C. 22, 145 S. E. 2d 439, reversed.

Matthew J. Perry argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Charles E. Washington, Jr.

Everett N. Brandon, Assistant Attorney General of South Carolina, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General, and Randolph Murdaugh.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina is reversed. Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 (1967).

Page 386 U.S. 479, 480




U.S. Supreme Court Reports

BOSTICK v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 386 U.S. 479 (1967) BOSTICK v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 386 U.S. 479 (1967) 386 U.S. 479

BOSTICK v. SOUTH CAROLINA ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
No. 647.
Argued March 20, 1967
Decided March 27, 1967.

247 S. C. 22, 145 S. E. 2d 439, reversed.

Matthew J. Perry argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Charles E. Washington, Jr.

Everett N. Brandon, Assistant Attorney General of South Carolina, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General, and Randolph Murdaugh.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina is reversed. Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 (1967).

Page 386 U.S. 479, 480

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.