LOOKRETIS v. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 338 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

LOOKRETIS v. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 338 (1968)

390 U.S. 338

LOOKRETIS v. UNITED STATES.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 913.
Decided March 11, 1968.

Certiorari granted; 385 F.2d 487, vacated and remanded.

Maurice J. Walsh for petitioner.

Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further consideration in the light of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, and Marchetti v. United States, ante, p. 39.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE is of the opinion that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.


HETTLEMAN v. CHICAGO LAW INSTITUTE, <a href="/cases/federal/us/390/338/case.html">390 U.S. 338</a> (1968) 390 U.S. 338 (1968) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

HETTLEMAN v. CHICAGO LAW INSTITUTE, 390 U.S. 338 (1968)

390 U.S. 338

HETTLEMAN ET AL. v. CHICAGO LAW INSTITUTE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 961.
Decided March 11, 1968.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Julius L. Sherwin for appellants.

William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, John J. O'Toole, Assistant Attorney General, John J. Stamos, Edward J. Hladis and Ronald Butler for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Page 390 U.S. 338, 339




U.S. Supreme Court

LOOKRETIS v. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 338 (1968)

390 U.S. 338

LOOKRETIS v. UNITED STATES.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 913.
Decided March 11, 1968.

Certiorari granted; 385 F.2d 487, vacated and remanded.

Maurice J. Walsh for petitioner.

Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further consideration in the light of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, and Marchetti v. United States, ante, p. 39.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE is of the opinion that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.


HETTLEMAN v. CHICAGO LAW INSTITUTE, <a href="/cases/federal/us/390/338/case.html">390 U.S. 338</a> (1968) 390 U.S. 338 (1968) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

HETTLEMAN v. CHICAGO LAW INSTITUTE, 390 U.S. 338 (1968)

390 U.S. 338

HETTLEMAN ET AL. v. CHICAGO LAW INSTITUTE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 961.
Decided March 11, 1968.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Julius L. Sherwin for appellants.

William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, John J. O'Toole, Assistant Attorney General, John J. Stamos, Edward J. Hladis and Ronald Butler for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Page 390 U.S. 338, 339

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.