Herrera v. Heinze

Supreme Court

Herrera v. Heinze

375 U.S. 26, 84 S. Ct. 90, 11 L. Ed. 2d 44, 1963 U.S. LEXIS 535

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 14, 1963

Docket82 M

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 375 U.S. 26 (Herrera v. Heinze) 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

Herrera v. Heinze, 375 U.S. 26, 84 S. Ct. 90, 11 L. Ed. 2d 44, 1963 U.S. LEXIS 535 (1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of California for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.

Mr. Justice Harlan, for the reasons stated in Daegele v. Kansas, ante, p. 1, would have withheld disposition of this petition for certiorari until the disposition, after argument, of that case.

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

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of California for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.

Mr. Justice Harlan, for the reasons stated in Daegele v. Kansas, ante, p. 1, would have withheld disposition of this petition for certiorari until the disposition, after argument, of that case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

375 U.S. 26, 84 S. Ct. 90, 11 L. Ed. 2d 44, 1963 U.S. LEXIS 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrera-v-heinze-scotus-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack