People v. Moll

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Moll

235 N.E.2d 456, 21 N.Y.2d 794, 288 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1642

DecidedFebruary 14, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 235 N.E.2d 456 (People v. Moll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Moll, 235 N.E.2d 456, 21 N.Y.2d 794, 288 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1642 (N.Y. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion by appellant Stanbridge to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein of appellant William Stanbridge, there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether appellant’s right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment had been adversely [795]*795affected and whether appellant’s conviction was based in part on unlawful search and seizure in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court of Appeals held that there was no violation of appellant’s constitutional rights under either of these amendments. [See 21 N Y 2d 706.]

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

Motion by appellant Stanbridge to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein of appellant William Stanbridge, there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether appellant’s right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment had been adversely [795]*795affected and whether appellant’s conviction was based in part on unlawful search and seizure in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court of Appeals held that there was no violation of appellant’s constitutional rights under either of these amendments. [See 21 N Y 2d 706.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 N.E.2d 456, 21 N.Y.2d 794, 288 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moll-ny-1968.