CARLOS v. NEW YORK, 396 U.S. 119 (1969)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

CARLOS v. NEW YORK, 396 U.S. 119 (1969)

396 U.S. 119

CARLOS v. NEW YORK
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 524.
Decided December 8, 1969

Certiorari granted; 24 N. Y. 2d 865, 248 N. E. 2d 924, reversed.

Herald Price Fahringer and Eugene Gressman for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed, Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied. However, the case having been taken for review, they would affirm the judgment of the state court upon the premises stated in MR. JUSTICE HARLAN'S separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496 (1957), and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455 (1966).

Page 396 U.S. 119, 120




U.S. Supreme Court

CARLOS v. NEW YORK, 396 U.S. 119 (1969)

396 U.S. 119

CARLOS v. NEW YORK
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 524.
Decided December 8, 1969

Certiorari granted; 24 N. Y. 2d 865, 248 N. E. 2d 924, reversed.

Herald Price Fahringer and Eugene Gressman for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed, Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied. However, the case having been taken for review, they would affirm the judgment of the state court upon the premises stated in MR. JUSTICE HARLAN'S separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496 (1957), and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455 (1966).

Page 396 U.S. 119, 120

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.