RAMM v. RAMM, 395 U.S. 462 (1969)
RAMM v. RAMM. U.S. Supreme Court
RAMM v. RAMM, 395 U.S. 462 (1969) 395 U.S. 462
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 1294.
Decided June 9, 1969.
22 N.Y.2d 926, 242 N.E.2d 88, appeal dismissed.
Norman Ramm, appellant, pro se.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
JONES v. UNITED STATES, 395 U.S. 462 (1969) 395 U.S. 462 JONES v. UNITED STATES.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 966, Misc.
Decided June 9, 1969.
Certiorari granted; 400 F.2d 134, vacated and remanded.
Edward L. Cragen for petitioner.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Jerome M. Feit, and Robert G. Maysack 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 Southern District of California for further consideration in light of Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165.
U.S. Supreme Court
RAMM v. RAMM, 395 U.S. 462 (1969) 395 U.S. 462 RAMM v. RAMM.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 1294.
Decided June 9, 1969.
22 N.Y.2d 926, 242 N.E.2d 88, appeal dismissed.
Norman Ramm, appellant, pro se.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
JONES v. UNITED STATES, 395 U.S. 462 (1969) 395 U.S. 462 JONES v. UNITED STATES.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 966, Misc.
Decided June 9, 1969.
Certiorari granted; 400 F.2d 134, vacated and remanded.
Edward L. Cragen for petitioner.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Jerome M. Feit, and Robert G. Maysack 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 Southern District of California for further consideration in light of Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165.
Page 395 U.S. 462, 463
