COBERT v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 443 (1967)

U.S. Supreme Court

COBERT v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 443 (1967)

388 U.S. 443

COBERT v. NEW YORK.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 21.
Decided June 12, 1967.

Certiorari granted; reversed.

Ephraim London for petitioner.

Frank S. Hogan for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN would affirm.

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. 443, 444




U.S. Supreme Court

COBERT v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 443 (1967)

388 U.S. 443

COBERT v. NEW YORK.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 21.
Decided June 12, 1967.

Certiorari granted; reversed.

Ephraim London for petitioner.

Frank S. Hogan for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN would affirm.

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. 443, 444

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.