UMANS v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 80 (1967)

U.S. Supreme Court

UMANS v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 80 (1967)

389 U.S. 80

UMANS v. UNITED STATES.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 41.
Argued October 11, 1967.
Decided November 6, 1967.

368 F.2d 725, certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

Edward Brodsky argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was William Esbitt.

Sidney M. Glazer argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg.

PER CURIAM.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Waterman's opinion for that court in United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725.

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 389 U.S. 80, 81




U.S. Supreme Court

UMANS v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 80 (1967)

389 U.S. 80

UMANS v. UNITED STATES.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 41.
Argued October 11, 1967.
Decided November 6, 1967.

368 F.2d 725, certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

Edward Brodsky argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was William Esbitt.

Sidney M. Glazer argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg.

PER CURIAM.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Waterman's opinion for that court in United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725.

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 389 U.S. 80, 81

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.