KENEY v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 440 (1967)
Decided:
June 12, 1967
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
KENEY v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 440 (1967) 388 U.S. 440KENEY v. NEW YORK.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COUNTY COURT OF MONROE
COUNTY,
NEW YORK. No. 2.
Decided June 12, 1967.
Certiorari granted; reversed.
Eugene Gressman for petitioner.
James H. Biben for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the County Court of Monroe County, New York, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm.
Opinions
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COUNTY COURT OF MONROE COUNTY,
NEW YORK. No. 2.
Decided June 12, 1967.
Certiorari granted; reversed. Eugene Gressman for petitioner. James H. Biben for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the County Court of Monroe County, New York, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm. Page 388 U.S. 440, 441
U.S. Supreme Court
KENEY v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 440 (1967) 388 U.S. 440 KENEY v. NEW YORK.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COUNTY COURT OF MONROE COUNTY,
NEW YORK. No. 2.
Decided June 12, 1967.
Certiorari granted; reversed. Eugene Gressman for petitioner. James H. Biben for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the County Court of Monroe County, New York, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm. Page 388 U.S. 440, 441
Search This Case
