STREETER v. CRAVEN, 392 U.S. 650 (1968)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
STREETER v. CRAVEN, 392 U.S. 650 (1968) 392 U.S. 650STREETER v. CRAVEN, WARDEN, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 830, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1968.
Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Derald E. Granberg, Deputy Attorney General, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54.
Opinions
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 830, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1968.
Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Derald E. Granberg, Deputy Attorney General, for respondents. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54. Page 392 U.S. 650, 651
U.S. Supreme Court
STREETER v. CRAVEN, 392 U.S. 650 (1968) 392 U.S. 650 STREETER v. CRAVEN, WARDEN, ET AL.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 830, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1968.
Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Derald E. Granberg, Deputy Attorney General, for respondents. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54. Page 392 U.S. 650, 651
Search This Case
