OKLAHOMA v. CASTLEBERRY, 471 U.S. 146 (1985)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

OKLAHOMA v. CASTLEBERRY, 471 U.S. 146 (1985)

471 U.S. 146

OKLAHOMA v. CASTLEBERRY ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA
 
No. 83-2126.
 
Argued March 20, 1985
Decided April 1, 1985

David W. Lee, Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Michael C. Turpen, Attorney General, and Hugh A. Manning, Assistant Attorney General.

Charles Foster Cox argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.*

[Footnote *] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of California by John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Robert R. Granucci, Assistant Attorney General, and Clifford K. Thompson, Jr., and Ronald E. Niver, Deputy Attorneys General; and for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., et al. by Fred E. Inbau, Wayne W. Schmidt, James P. Manak, David Crump, and Daniel B. Hales.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

JUSTICE POWELL took no part in the decision of this case.

Page 471 U.S. 146, 147

 


U.S. Supreme Court

OKLAHOMA v. CASTLEBERRY, 471 U.S. 146 (1985)

471 U.S. 146

OKLAHOMA v. CASTLEBERRY ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA
 
No. 83-2126.
 
Argued March 20, 1985
Decided April 1, 1985

David W. Lee, Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Michael C. Turpen, Attorney General, and Hugh A. Manning, Assistant Attorney General.

Charles Foster Cox argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.*

[Footnote *] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of California by John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Robert R. Granucci, Assistant Attorney General, and Clifford K. Thompson, Jr., and Ronald E. Niver, Deputy Attorneys General; and for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., et al. by Fred E. Inbau, Wayne W. Schmidt, James P. Manak, David Crump, and Daniel B. Hales.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

JUSTICE POWELL took no part in the decision of this case.

Page 471 U.S. 146, 147

Oral Argument - March 20, 1985
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.