JOHNSON v. VOYLES, 394 U.S. 216 (1969)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
JOHNSON v. VOYLES, 394 U.S. 216 (1969) 394 U.S. 216JOHNSON v. VOYLES, SHERIFF, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
TEXAS.
No. 429, Misc.
Decided March 10, 1969.
Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.
Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Robert C. Flowers and Allo B. Crow, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, and Stanley Kirk 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 Supreme Court of Texas for further consideration in light of Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374.
Opinions
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS.
No. 429, Misc.
Decided March 10, 1969.
Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded. Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Robert C. Flowers and Allo B. Crow, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, and Stanley Kirk 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 Supreme Court of Texas for further consideration in light of Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374. Page 394 U.S. 216, 217
U.S. Supreme Court
JOHNSON v. VOYLES, 394 U.S. 216 (1969) 394 U.S. 216 JOHNSON v. VOYLES, SHERIFF, ET AL.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS.
No. 429, Misc.
Decided March 10, 1969.
Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded. Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Robert C. Flowers and Allo B. Crow, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, and Stanley Kirk 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 Supreme Court of Texas for further consideration in light of Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374. Page 394 U.S. 216, 217
Search This Case
