S v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 397 U.S. 597 (1970)
U.S. Supreme Court
S v. CITY OF NEW YORK , 397 U.S. 597 (1970)
397 U.S. 597
Richard S
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK.
No. 1478, Misc.
Supreme Court of the United States
April 20, 1970
Jonathan A. Weiss, for appellant.
J. Lee Rankin, Stanley Buchsbaum, and Robert T. Hartmann, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of New York for further consideration in light of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice STEWART dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion of The Chief Justice in In re Winship, 397 U.S., at 375.
Mr. Justice BLACK dissents for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in In re Winship, 397 U.S., at 377.[ S v. City of New York 397 U.S. 597 (1970) ]
U.S. Supreme Court
S v. CITY OF NEW YORK , 397 U.S. 597 (1970)
397 U.S. 597
Richard S
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK.
No. 1478, Misc.
Supreme Court of the United States
April 20, 1970
Jonathan A. Weiss, for appellant.
J. Lee Rankin, Stanley Buchsbaum, and Robert T. Hartmann, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of New York for further consideration in light of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice STEWART dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion of The Chief Justice in In re Winship, 397 U.S., at 375.
Mr. Justice BLACK dissents for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in In re Winship, 397 U.S., at 377.[ S v. City of New York 397 U.S. 597 (1970) ]
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.
