ROBERT-ARTHUR MANAGEMENT CORP. v. TENN. EX REL. CANALE, 389 U.S. 578 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

ROBERT-ARTHUR MANAGEMENT CORP. v. TENN. EX REL. CANALE, 389 U.S. 578 (1968)

389 U.S. 578

ROBERT-ARTHUR MANAGEMENT CORP. v. TENNESSEE EX REL. CANALE, DISTRICT
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE. No. 679.
Decided January 15, 1968.

___ Tenn. ___, 414 S. W. 2d 638, reversed.

Longstreet Heiskell for appellant.

George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Thomas E. Fox, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE would affirm.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm for the reasons set forth in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, 500-503, and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455.

Page 389 U.S. 578, 579




U.S. Supreme Court

ROBERT-ARTHUR MANAGEMENT CORP. v. TENN. EX REL. CANALE, 389 U.S. 578 (1968)

389 U.S. 578

ROBERT-ARTHUR MANAGEMENT CORP. v. TENNESSEE EX REL. CANALE, DISTRICT
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE. No. 679.
Decided January 15, 1968.

___ Tenn. ___, 414 S. W. 2d 638, reversed.

Longstreet Heiskell for appellant.

George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Thomas E. Fox, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE would affirm.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm for the reasons set forth in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, 500-503, and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455.

Page 389 U.S. 578, 579

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.