Skip to content


Puntari Vs. Pennsylvania - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number372 U.S. 708
AppellantPuntari
RespondentPennsylvania
Excerpt:
..... the appeal is dismissed. treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. page 372 u.s. 708, 709 luckman v. dunbar, 372 u.s. 708 (1963) 372 u.s. 708 (1963) "> u.s. supreme court luckman v. dunbar, 372 u.s. 708 (1963) 372 u.s. 708 luckman v. dunbar, corrections director, et al. on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of california. no. 63, misc. decided april 15, 1963. certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. petitioner pro se. stanley mosk, attorney general of california, and robert r. granucci and john s. mcinerny, deputy attorneys general, for respondents. per curiam. the motion for leave to.....
Judgment:
PUNTARI v. PENNSYLVANIA - 372 U.S. 708 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court PUNTARI v. PENNSYLVANIA, 372 U.S. 708 (1963) 372 U.S. 708

PUNTARI v. PENNSYLVANIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 718, Misc.
Decided April 15, 1963.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Page 372 U.S. 708, 709


LUCKMAN v. DUNBAR, <a href="/100656"> 372 U.S. 708 </a> (1963) 372 U.S. 708 (1963) "> U.S. Supreme Court LUCKMAN v. DUNBAR, 372 U.S. 708 (1963) 372 U.S. 708

LUCKMAN v. DUNBAR, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 63, Misc.
Decided April 15, 1963.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Petitioner pro se.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, and Robert R. Granucci and John S. McInerny, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent for the reasons stated in their opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S., at 358, 360.




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