Maryland Levin v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 345,345 |
| Citation | 15 L.Ed.2d 227,86 S.Ct. 305,382 U.S. 159 |
| Parties | MARYLAND for the Use of Nadine Y. LEVIN et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Theodore E. Wolcott, for petitioners.
Solicitor General Marshall, former Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, Morton Hollander, Nathan Lewin and David L. Rose, for the United States.
Louis G. Davidson, Richard W. Galiher, William E. Stewart, Jr., and Peter J. McBreen, as amici curiae.
On Petition for Rehearing.
The petition for rehearing and the motion to remand for trial on unresolved issues are granted as herein indicated. The judgment of this Court of May 3, 1965, 381 U.S. 41, 85 S.Ct. 1293, 14 L.Ed.2d 205, is vacated, and in lieu thereof the following judgment is entered: 'The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is modified to direct that the case be remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for further proceedings with respect to the unresolved issues tendered in petitioners' bill of complaint, and is in all other respects affirmed.'
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice CLARK and Mr. Justice HARLAN, believing that a remand is legally unjustified, dissent from that part of the Court's order.
Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Synchronoss Securities Litigation.
... ... Civil Action No. 08-4437 (GEB). United States District Court, ... D. New Jersey. April 7, 2010. 705 F.Supp.2d ... ...
-
Dupuy v. Dupuy
... ... DUPUY, Jr., Defendant-Appellee ... No. 76-2667 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Fifth Circuit ... May 9, 1977 ... Page ... ...
-
Feit v. Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corporation
... ... No. 69 Civ. 1329 ... United States District Court, E. D. New York ... August 26, 1971. 332 F. Supp ... ...
-
Stanford v. United States
...for Use of Levin v. United States, 381 U.S. 41, 47, 85 S.Ct. 1293, 14 L.Ed.2d 205 (1965), vacated on other grounds,382 U.S. 159, 86 S.Ct. 305, 15 L.Ed.2d 227 (1965) (explaining that state National Guards are commanded and administered by the states); United States v. Hutchings, 127 F.3d 125......