U S v. ROWELL, 397 U.S. 662 (1970)

U.S. Supreme Court

U S v. ROWELL , 397 U.S. 662 (1970)

397 U.S. 662

UNITED STATES
v.
Howard Eugene ROWELL.
No. 863.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 27, 1970

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Mervyn Hamburg, for the United States.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of the respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is also granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Buie v. United States, 396 U.S. 87.[ U S v. Rowell 397 U.S. 662 (1970) ]


U.S. Supreme Court

U S v. ROWELL , 397 U.S. 662 (1970)

 397 U.S. 662

UNITED STATES
v.
Howard Eugene ROWELL.
No. 863.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 27, 1970

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Mervyn Hamburg, for the United States.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of the respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is also granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Buie v. United States, 396 U.S. 87.[ U S v. Rowell 397 U.S. 662 (1970) ]

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.