FRIEDMAN v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 441 (1967)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
FRIEDMAN v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 441 (1967) 388 U.S. 441FRIEDMAN v. NEW YORK.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE TERM OF THE
SUPREME
COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. No. 7.
Decided June 12, 1967.
Certiorari granted; reversed.
Ira H. Holley and Eugene Gressman for petitioner.
Frank S. Hogan for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm.
Opinions
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. No. 7.
Decided June 12, 1967.
Certiorari granted; reversed. Ira H. Holley and Eugene Gressman for petitioner. Frank S. Hogan for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm. Page 388 U.S. 441, 442
U.S. Supreme Court
FRIEDMAN v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 441 (1967) 388 U.S. 441 FRIEDMAN v. NEW YORK.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. No. 7.
Decided June 12, 1967.
Certiorari granted; reversed. Ira H. Holley and Eugene Gressman for petitioner. Frank S. Hogan for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm. Page 388 U.S. 441, 442
Search This Case
