Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES ex rel. CERULLO v. FOLLETTE, WARDEN, 1969 — 396 U.S. 1232 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES ex rel. CERULLO v. FOLLETTE, WARDEN
396 U.S. 1232·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES ex rel. CERULLO v. FOLLETTE, WARDEN
Decided October 16, 1969
See: 393 F. 2d 879 and 294 F. Supp. 1283.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Harlan, Circuit Justice.]
Memorandum of
Mr. Justice Harlan, Circuit Justice.
Applicant requests an extension of time to file a petition for certiorari. Since, in the posture of this case, his time for filing will not expire until December 31, 1969, I perceive no necessity for an extension at this stage. No reason appears why the time remaining will not be sufficient for the preparation and filing of a petition for certiorari.
Applicant also requests a stay of the mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and continuance of bail pending determination of his petition for certiorari. Pursuant to the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the mandate has already issued. Treating the papers as an application for bail pending action on the petition, I note that there is no sign that applicant has made a request to the Court of Appeals, as he may under Fed. Rule App. Proc. 23 (b). In my view that court should have an opportunity to consider applicant's request before it is entertained by a Justice of this Court. Cf. U. S. Sup. Ct. Rule 27.