Skip to content


New Jersey Vs. Russo - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number384 U.S. 889
AppellantNew Jersey
RespondentRusso
Excerpt:
.....pro se. briefs of amici curiae, in support of the petition, were filed by arthur j. sills, attorney general of new jersey, alan b. handler, first assistant attorney general, and richard newman and max spinrad, deputy attorneys general, for the attorney general of new jersey; and by arlen specter and joseph m. smith for the district attorney of philadelphia county, pennsylvania. per curiam. the motion of respondent frank bisignano for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. the petition for a writ of certiorari is also granted and the judgment is vacated. the case is remanded to the united states district court for the district of new jersey for further proceedings in light of johnson v. new jersey, ante, p. 719. mr. justice douglas dissents for the reasons.....
Judgment:
NEW JERSEY v. RUSSO - 384 U.S. 889 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court NEW JERSEY v. RUSSO, 384 U.S. 889 (1966) 384 U.S. 889

NEW JERSEY ET AL. v. RUSSO ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 834.
Decided June 20, 1966.

Certiorari granted; 351 F.2d 429 , vacated and remanded.

Brendan T. Byrne for petitioners.

Raymond A. Brown and Irving I. Vogelman for respondent Russo. Respondent Bisignano, pro se.

Briefs of amici curiae, in support of the petition, were filed by Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, Alan B. Handler, First Assistant Attorney General, and Richard Newman and Max Spinrad, Deputy Attorneys General, for the Attorney General of New Jersey; and by Arlen Specter and Joseph M. Smith for the District Attorney of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of respondent Frank Bisignano for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is also granted and the judgment is vacated. The case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for further proceedings in light of Johnson v. New Jersey, ante, p. 719.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Johnson v. New Jersey, ante, at 736.

Page 384 U.S. 889, 890




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