Skip to content


Watson Vs. Missouri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number381 U.S. 275
AppellantWatson
RespondentMissouri
Excerpt:
.....for want of jurisdiction. treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. page 381 u.s. 275, 276 howell v. ohio, 381 u.s. 275 (1965) 381 u.s. 275 (1965) "> u.s. supreme court howell v. ohio, 381 u.s. 275 (1965) 381 u.s. 275 howell v. ohio. on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of ohio. no. 789. decided may 17, 1965. certiorari granted, judgment vacated and case remanded. reported below: 177 ohio st. 19, 201 n. e. 2d 529. bernard a. berkman for petitioner. thomas h. sutherland for respondent. per curiam. the petition for writ of certiorari is granted. the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the.....
Judgment:
WATSON v. MISSOURI - 381 U.S. 275 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court WATSON v. MISSOURI, 381 U.S. 275 (1965) 381 U.S. 275

WATSON v. MISSOURI.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI.
No. 1031, Misc.
Decided May 17, 1965.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 386 S. W. 2d 24.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 381 U.S. 275, 276


HOWELL v. OHIO, <a href="/101139"> 381 U.S. 275 </a> (1965) 381 U.S. 275 (1965) "> U.S. Supreme Court HOWELL v. OHIO, 381 U.S. 275 (1965) 381 U.S. 275

HOWELL v. OHIO.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 789.
Decided May 17, 1965.

Certiorari granted, judgment vacated and case remanded.

Reported below: 177 Ohio St. 19, 201 N. E. 2d 529.

Bernard A. Berkman for petitioner.

Thomas H. Sutherland for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Ohio for further consideration in light of Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 .

THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.




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