Frohman Holland v. Hogan, District Attorney

Supreme Court

Frohman Holland v. Hogan, District Attorney

392 U.S. 654, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1342, 88 S. Ct. 2271, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1164

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJune 17, 1968

Docket653

StatusPublished

This text of 392 U.S. 654 (Frohman Holland v. Hogan, District Attorney) 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

Frohman Holland v. Hogan, District Attorney, 392 U.S. 654, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1342, 88 S. Ct. 2271, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1164 (1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for further consideration in light of Gardner v. Broderick, ante, p. 273, and George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid, ante, p. 286.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for further consideration in light of Gardner v. Broderick, ante, p. 273, and George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid, ante, p. 286.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 U.S. 654, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1342, 88 S. Ct. 2271, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frohman-holland-v-hogan-district-attorney-scotus-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack