Skip to content


Hillman Vs. Florida - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number392 U.S. 307
AppellantHillman
RespondentFlorida
Excerpt:
.....of appeal of florida, first district, is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of bruton v. united states, 391 u.s. 123 . see roberts v. russell, ante, p. 293. mr. justice harlan and mr. justice white dissent for the reasons stated in mr. justice white's dissenting opinion in bruton v. united states, 391 u.s. 123, 138 (1968). page 392 u.s. 307, 308
Judgment:
HILLMAN v. FLORIDA - 392 U.S. 307 (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court HILLMAN v. FLORIDA, 392 U.S. 307 (1968) 392 U.S. 307

HILLMAN v. FLORIDA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF
FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT. No. 443, Misc.
Decided June 10, 1968.

Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.

Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and Wallace E. Allbritton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 . See Roberts v. Russell, ante, p. 293.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissent for the reasons stated in MR. JUSTICE WHITE'S dissenting opinion in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 138 (1968).

Page 392 U.S. 307, 308




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