WAGGONER v. ROSENN, 394 U.S. 846 (1969)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

WAGGONER v. ROSENN, 394 U.S. 846 (1969) 394 U.S. 846

WAGGONER ET AL. v. ROSENN, SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF PENNSYLVANIA.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 144, Misc.
Decided May 5, 1969.

 286 F. Supp. 275, vacated and remanded.

William C. Sennett, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Edgar R. Casper, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of appellants for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania for further consideration in light of Shapiro v. Thompson, ante, p. 618.

RHODES v. KANSAS, <a href="/cases/federal/us/394/846/case.html">394 U.S. 846</a> (1969) 394 U.S. 846 (1969) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

RHODES v. KANSAS, 394 U.S. 846 (1969) 394 U.S. 846

RHODES v. KANSAS.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT
COURT OF SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS. No. 877, Misc.
Decided May 5, 1969.

Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.

Kent Frizzell, Attorney General of Kansas, and E. G. Collister, Jr., Deputy 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 vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, for further consideration in light of Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374.

Page 394 U.S. 846, 847

 


U.S. Supreme Court

WAGGONER v. ROSENN, 394 U.S. 846 (1969) 394 U.S. 846

WAGGONER ET AL. v. ROSENN, SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF PENNSYLVANIA.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 144, Misc.
Decided May 5, 1969.

 286 F. Supp. 275, vacated and remanded.

William C. Sennett, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Edgar R. Casper, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of appellants for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania for further consideration in light of Shapiro v. Thompson, ante, p. 618.

RHODES v. KANSAS, <a href="/cases/federal/us/394/846/case.html"><a class="related-case" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/846/"><a class="related-case" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/846/">394 U.S. 846</a></a></a> (1969) 394 U.S. 846 (1969) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

RHODES v. KANSAS, 394 U.S. 846 (1969) 394 U.S. 846

RHODES v. KANSAS.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT
COURT OF SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS. No. 877, Misc.
Decided May 5, 1969.

Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.

Kent Frizzell, Attorney General of Kansas, and E. G. Collister, Jr., Deputy 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 vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, for further consideration in light of Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374.

Page 394 U.S. 846, 847

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.