HENRY v. LOUISIANA, 392 U.S. 655 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

HENRY v. LOUISIANA, 392 U.S. 655 (1968)

392 U.S. 655

HENRY v. LOUISIANA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA.
No. 932.
Decided June 17, 1968.

Appeal dismissed; certiorari granted; 250 La. 682, 198 So.2d 889, reversed.

Thomas Barr III for appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana, and William P. Schuler, Second Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

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 granted and the judgment is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm the judgment of the state court upon the premises stated in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455.

Page 392 U.S. 655, 656




U.S. Supreme Court

HENRY v. LOUISIANA, 392 U.S. 655 (1968)

392 U.S. 655

HENRY v. LOUISIANA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA.
No. 932.
Decided June 17, 1968.

Appeal dismissed; certiorari granted; 250 La. 682, 198 So.2d 889, reversed.

Thomas Barr III for appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana, and William P. Schuler, Second Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

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 granted and the judgment is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm the judgment of the state court upon the premises stated in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455.

Page 392 U.S. 655, 656

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.