Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

June 12, 1967.

388 U.S.

ROSENBLOOM v. VIRGINIA.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.

No. 366. Decided June 12, 1967.

Certiorari granted; reversed.

Seymour Horwitz and Melvin L. Wulf for petitioner. James B. Wilkinson for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia is reversed. Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, 355 U. S. 372.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm.

388 U.S.

June 12, 1967.

BURKARD ET AL. v. NEW YORK.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.

No. 807. Decided June 12, 1967.*

18 N. Y. 2d 148, 219 N. E. 2d 183, appeals dismissed and certiorari denied.

Victor Rabinowitz, Leonard B. Boudin and Samuel A. Neuberger for appellants in No. 807. Edward Bennett Williams and Raymond W. Bergan for appellants in No. 808.

Frank S. Hogan for appellee in both cases.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeals were taken as petitions for writs of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

*Together with No. 808, Habel et al. v. New York, also on appeal from the same court.

[blocks in formation]

A QUANTITY OF COPIES OF BOOKS et al. v. KANSAS.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.

No. 865. Decided June 12, 1967.

Certiorari granted; 197 Kan. 306, 416 P. 2d 703, reversed.

Stanley Fleishman for petitioners.

Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General of Kansas, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Kansas is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument in light of A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U. S. 205.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK would grant the petition and affirm the judgment.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm.

[blocks in formation]

WHITEHOUSE TRUCKING, INC. v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.

No. 1255. Decided June 12, 1967.

261 F. Supp. 9, affirmed.

Robert P. Mone and James M. Burtch for appellant. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane and Nahum Litt for the United States et al., and James E. Wilson and Edward G. Villalon for Hennis Freight Lines, Inc., et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MAZES v. OHIO.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.

No. 896. Decided June 12, 1967.

Certiorari granted; 7 Ohio St. 2d 136, 218 N. E. 2d 725, reversed.

Stanley M. Dietz for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument on the Ohio statute.

June 12, 1967.

388 U.S.

SCHACKMAN ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

No. 995. Decided June 12, 1967.

Judgments reversed.

Burton Marks for appellants.

Roger Arnebergh and Philip E. Grey for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgments of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, are reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN would affirm the judgments of the lower court. Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm.

« НазадПродовжити »