United States Poret v. Sigler
| Decision Date | 25 January 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 307,M,307 |
| Citation | United States Poret v. Sigler, 361 U.S. 375, 80 S.Ct. 404, 4 L.Ed.2d 380 (1960) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. PORET et al. v. Maurice SIGLER, Warden. isc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. G. Wray Gill and Gerard H. Schreiber, for petitioners.
Messrs. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen. of Louisiana, M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John E. Jackson, Jr., Special Counsel to the Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted.The judgment is vacated and the case remanded to the District Court for disposition of the question whether members of petitioner's race were deliberately and intentionally limited and excluded in the...
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
20 cases
-
Labat v. Bennett
..."limited and excluded in the selection of petit jury panels" in Orleans Parish. United States ex rel. Poret and Labat v. Sigler, 1960, 361 U.S. 375, 80 S.Ct. 404, 4 L.Ed.2d 380. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found: since the petitioners had failed to make timely objection......
-
U.S. ex rel. Sero v. Preiser
...have frequently entertained joint applications by petitioners convicted at a joint trial. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Poret v. Sigler, 361 U.S. 375, 80 S.Ct. 404, 4 L.Ed.2d 380 (1960); Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 43 S.Ct. 265, 67 L.Ed. 543 (1923); United States ex rel. Kozicky v. Fa......
-
Roa v. Lodi Medical Group, Inc.
... ... (Prob.Code, §§ 910, 901.) Some states have adopted maximum [695 P.2d 167] fee schedules which ... successful claimants in an action against the United States raised a similar due process challenge to a ... ...
-
Brown v. Blumenfeld
... ... reason, the present case is distinguishable from United States v. Hammad, 858 F.2d 834 [2d Cir.], cert. denied ... 338, 342, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307). Here, Justice Blumenfeld opined that the purpose of a ... ...
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
"garbage In, Garbage Out": the Litigation Implosion Over the Unconstitutional Organization and Jurisdiction of the City Court of Atlanta - Edward C. Brewer Iii
...1170-73 (1970), and Note, Multiparty Federal Habeas Corpus, 81 harv. L. REV. 1482 (1968). 283. See United States ex rel. Poret v. Sigler, 361 U.S. 375 (1960); Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923). 284. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(2). 285. See Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969). 286. See Asimus......