ROLLERSON v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 575 (1969)

U.S. Supreme Court

ROLLERSON v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 575 (1969)

394 U.S. 575

ROLLERSON v. UNITED STATES.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 1425, Misc.
Decided April 7, 1969.

Certiorari granted; ___ U.S. App. D.C. ___, 405 F.2d 1078, vacated and remanded.

William H. Allen for petitioner.

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Roger A. Pauley for the United States.

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 District Court for the District of Columbia for further consideration in light of Kaufman v. United States, ante, p. 217.

MR. JUSTICE FORTAS concurs in the disposition of this case but notes that the Court's action does not imply any view as to the merits of any of the petitioner's claims including his assertions as to double jeopardy.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, and MR. JUSTICE STEWART dissent.

Page 394 U.S. 575, 576

 


U.S. Supreme Court

ROLLERSON v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 575 (1969)

394 U.S. 575

ROLLERSON v. UNITED STATES.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 1425, Misc.
Decided April 7, 1969.

Certiorari granted; ___ U.S. App. D.C. ___, 405 F.2d 1078, vacated and remanded.

William H. Allen for petitioner.

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Roger A. Pauley for the United States.

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 District Court for the District of Columbia for further consideration in light of Kaufman v. United States, ante, p. 217.

MR. JUSTICE FORTAS concurs in the disposition of this case but notes that the Court's action does not imply any view as to the merits of any of the petitioner's claims including his assertions as to double jeopardy.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, and MR. JUSTICE STEWART dissent.

Page 394 U.S. 575, 576

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.