Skip to content


Payne Vs. Madigan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number366 U.S. 761
AppellantPayne
RespondentMadigan
Excerpt:
.....366 u.s. 761 (1961) 366 u.s. 761 payne v. madigan, warden. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit. no. 180. argued february 27, 1961. decided june 5, 1961. * 274 f.2d 702 , 698, affirmed by an equally divided court. [ footnote * ] together with no. 184, young v. united states, on certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit. frederick m. rowe, acting under appointment by the court, 364 u.s. 807, argued the cause for petitioners in both cases. with him on the briefs was howard p. willens. harold h. greene argued the cause for respondents in both cases. with him on the brief were solicitor general cox, acting assistant attorney general doar and david rubin. per.....
Judgment:
PAYNE v. MADIGAN - 366 U.S. 761 (1961)
U.S. Supreme Court PAYNE v. MADIGAN, 366 U.S. 761 (1961) 366 U.S. 761

PAYNE v. MADIGAN, WARDEN.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
No. 180.
Argued February 27, 1961.
Decided June 5, 1961. *

274 F.2d 702 , 698, affirmed by an equally divided Court.

[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 184, Young v. United States, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Frederick M. Rowe, acting under appointment by the Court, 364 U.S. 807, argued the cause for petitioners in both cases. With him on the briefs was Howard P. Willens.

Harold H. Greene argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Doar and David Rubin.

PER CURIAM.

The judgments are affirmed by an equally divided Court.

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Page 366 U.S. 761, 762




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //