CARROLL v. TEXAS, 392 U.S. 664 (1968)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

CARROLL v. TEXAS, 392 U.S. 664 (1968)

392 U.S. 664

CARROLL v. TEXAS.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS. No. 1224, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1968.

Certiorari granted; reversed.

Don Gladden and Sam Houston Clinton, Jr., for petitioner.

Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, and Howard M. Fender, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. JUSTICE STEWART, and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied.

Page 392 U.S. 664, 665

 


U.S. Supreme Court

CARROLL v. TEXAS, 392 U.S. 664 (1968)

392 U.S. 664

CARROLL v. TEXAS.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS. No. 1224, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1968.

Certiorari granted; reversed.

Don Gladden and Sam Houston Clinton, Jr., for petitioner.

Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, and Howard M. Fender, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. JUSTICE STEWART, and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied.

Page 392 U.S. 664, 665

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.