del hoyo v. new york, 378 u.s. 570 (1964)

1
378 U.S. 570 84 S.Ct. 1928 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 Alisandro DEL HOYO v. NEW YORK. No. 893, Misc. Supreme Court of the United States June 22, 1964 Leon B. Polsky and Edward A. Miller, for petitioner. Isidore Dollinger and Irving Anolik, for respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the pet tion for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774. 2 Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice CLARK, Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice STEWART dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Jackson v. Denno, supra.

Upload: scribd-government-docs

Post on 11-Jul-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

Filed: 1964-06-22Precedential Status: PrecedentialCitations: 378 U.S. 570Docket: 893, Misc

TRANSCRIPT

378 U.S. 570

84 S.Ct. 1928

12 L.Ed.2d 1039

Alisandro DEL HOYOv.

NEW YORK.

No. 893, Misc.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 22, 1964

Leon B. Polsky and Edward A. Miller, for petitioner.

Isidore Dollinger and Irving Anolik, for respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Appellate Division, SupremeCourt of New York, First Judicial Department.

PER CURIAM.

1 The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the pet tion for a writ ofcertiorari are granted. The judgment of the Appellate Division of the SupremeCourt of New York, First Judicial Department, is vacated and the case isremanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Courtin Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774.

2 Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice CLARK, Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr.Justice STEWART dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions inJackson v. Denno, supra.