People v. Salisbury

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Salisbury

225 N.E.2d 576, 19 N.Y.2d 703, 278 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1719

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Salisbury. Read the opinion of the Court — 18 N.Y.2d 899 →

New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 23, 1967·Published

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon the following question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether the provisions of subdivision (5) of section 913-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure are unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals, passing upon this question, held that there was no violation of appellant’s constitutional rights. [See 18 N Y 2d 899.]

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

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon the following question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether the provisions of subdivision (5) of section 913-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure are unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals, passing upon this question, held that there was no violation of appellant’s constitutional rights. [See 18 N Y 2d 899.]

People v. Salisbury, 225 N.E.2d 576, 19 N.Y.2d 703, 278 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1719 (N.Y. 1967).

Pincite

225 N.E.2d 576 (People v. Salisbury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.