ANDERSON v. JOHNSON, 390 U.S. 456 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

ANDERSON v. JOHNSON, 390 U.S. 456 (1968)

390 U.S. 456

ANDERSON v. JOHNSON, WARDEN.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.
No. 700.
Argued March 6, 1968.
Decided March 25, 1968.

 371 F.2d 84, judgment remains in effect.

J. Brad Reed argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

Ed R. Davies argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee.

PER CURIAM.

Four members of the Court would reverse. Four members of the Court would dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. Consequently, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit remains in effect.

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

Page 390 U.S. 456, 457

 


U.S. Supreme Court

ANDERSON v. JOHNSON, 390 U.S. 456 (1968)

390 U.S. 456

ANDERSON v. JOHNSON, WARDEN.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.
No. 700.
Argued March 6, 1968.
Decided March 25, 1968.

 371 F.2d 84, judgment remains in effect.

J. Brad Reed argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

Ed R. Davies argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee.

PER CURIAM.

Four members of the Court would reverse. Four members of the Court would dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. Consequently, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit remains in effect.

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

Page 390 U.S. 456, 457

Oral Argument - March 06, 1968
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.