HESTER v. ILLINOIS, 397 U.S. 660 (1970)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

HESTER v. ILLINOIS , 397 U.S. 660 (1970)

397 U.S. 660

Lee Arthur HESTER, petitioner,
v.
State of ILLINOIS.
No. 82.

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1969.

April 27, 1970

Marshall Kaplan, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.

Joel M. Flaum, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

PER CURIAM.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Mr. Justice BRENNAN, and Mr. Justice MARSHALL dissent.[ Hester v. Illinois 397 U.S. 660 (1970) ]


U.S. Supreme Court

HESTER v. ILLINOIS , 397 U.S. 660 (1970)

 397 U.S. 660

Lee Arthur HESTER, petitioner,
v.
State of ILLINOIS.
No. 82.

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1969.

April 27, 1970

Marshall Kaplan, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.

Joel M. Flaum, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

PER CURIAM.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Mr. Justice BRENNAN, and Mr. Justice MARSHALL dissent.[ Hester v. Illinois 397 U.S. 660 (1970) ]

Oral Argument - November 18, 1969
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.