McMANN v. ROSS, 396 U.S. 118 (1969)
U.S. Supreme Court
McMANN v. ROSS, 396 U.S. 118 (1969)
396 U.S. 118 McMANN, WARDEN, ET AL. v. ROSS ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 153.
Decided December 8, 1969
409 F.2d 1016, vacated and remanded as to respondent Ross.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Lillian Z. Cohen and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorneys General, for petitioners.
Thomas D. Barr for respondent Ross.
Frank S. Hogan, pro se, and Michael R. Juviler for the District Attorney of New York County as amicus curiae urging reversal.
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the suggestion of mootness by reason of the death of respondent Ross the judgment of the Court of Appeals, as to Ross, is vacated and the case as to him is remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York with directions to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot.
U.S. Supreme Court
McMANN v. ROSS, 396 U.S. 118 (1969)
396 U.S. 118 McMANN, WARDEN, ET AL. v. ROSS ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 153.
Decided December 8, 1969
409 F.2d 1016, vacated and remanded as to respondent Ross.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Lillian Z. Cohen and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorneys General, for petitioners.
Thomas D. Barr for respondent Ross.
Frank S. Hogan, pro se, and Michael R. Juviler for the District Attorney of New York County as amicus curiae urging reversal.
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the suggestion of mootness by reason of the death of respondent Ross the judgment of the Court of Appeals, as to Ross, is vacated and the case as to him is remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York with directions to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot.
Page 396 U.S. 118, 119
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.
