Catanzaro v. New York
| Decision Date | 22 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 994,M,994 |
| Citation | Catanzaro v. New York, 378 U.S. 573, 84 S.Ct. 1931, 12 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1964) |
| Parties | Lorenzo CATANZARO v. NEW YORK. isc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Lorenzo Catanzaro, pro se.
Frank S. Hogan and H. Richard Uviller, for respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
8 cases
-
Com. ex rel. Butler v. Rundle
...appeal. Nevertheless, we remanded for a hearing so that the requirements of Jackson might be fulfilled.5 Catanzaro v. New York, 378 U.S. 573, 84 S.Ct. 1931, 12 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1964); Del Hoyo v. New York, 378 U.S. 570, 84 S.Ct. 1928, 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1964); Harris v. Texas, 378 U.S. 572, 84 S......
-
State v. Ussery
...378 U.S. 571, 84 S.Ct. 1929, 12 L.Ed.2d 1040; Harris v. Texas, 378 U.S. 572, 84 S.Ct. 1930, 12 L.Ed.2d 1040; Catanzaro v. New York, 378 U.S. 573, 84 S.Ct. 1931, 12 L.Ed.2d 1040; Owen v. Arizona, 378 U.S. 574, 84 S.Ct. 1932, 12 L.Ed.2d 1041; McNerlin v. Denno, 378 U.S. 575, 84 S.Ct. 1933, 12......
-
Jackson v. Denno
...Pea v. United States, 378 U.S. 578, 84 S.Ct. 1929 (C.A.D.C.Cir.); Owen v. Arizona, 378 U.S. 574, 84 S.Ct. 1932; Catanzaro v. New York, 378 U.S. 573, 84 S.Ct. 1931; Del Hoyo v. New York, 378 U.S. 570, 84 S.Ct. 1928; Lathan v. New York, 378 U.S. 566, 84 S.Ct. 1923; Oister v. Pennsylvania, 378......
-
People v. Hill
...not inconsistent with (its) opinion * * * in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908.' (Catanzaro v. New York, 378 U.S. 573, 84 S.Ct. 1931.) In compliance with that mandate, we 'WITHHELD' DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL AND 'remitted' the case to the trial court for a hear......
Get Started for Free