Casey v. United States

Supreme Court

Casey v. United States

343 U.S. 808, 72 S. Ct. 999, 96 L. Ed. 2d 1317, 96 L. Ed. 1317, 1952 U.S. LEXIS 1956

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJune 9, 1952

Docket379

StatusPublished

Cited by43 cases

This text of 343 U.S. 808 (Casey v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casey v. United States, 343 U.S. 808, 72 S. Ct. 999, 96 L. Ed. 2d 1317, 96 L. Ed. 1317, 1952 U.S. LEXIS 1956 (1952).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The controlling claim in this case is that there was an unreasonable search and seizure of evidence, the admission of which vitiated the convictions. Before determining these issues conflicting views as to the facts in this case and the inferences to be drawn from them would have to be resolved. The Solicitor General confesses error and asks that the judgment below should be reversed as to all the petitioners, leaving of course the way open for a new trial. To accept in this case his confession of error would not involve the establishment of any precedent.

Accordingly we reverse the judgment as to all the petitioners. „ ,

„ Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The controlling claim in this case is that there was an unreasonable search and seizure of evidence, the admission of which vitiated the convictions. Before determining these issues conflicting views as to the facts in this case and the inferences to be drawn from them would have to be resolved. The Solicitor General confesses error and asks that the judgment below should be reversed as to all the petitioners, leaving of course the way open for a new trial. To accept in this case his confession of error would not involve the establishment of any precedent.

Accordingly we reverse the judgment as to all the petitioners. „ ,

„ Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 U.S. 808, 72 S. Ct. 999, 96 L. Ed. 2d 1317, 96 L. Ed. 1317, 1952 U.S. LEXIS 1956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-v-united-states-scotus-1952.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack