Contracts · MBE-tested
McCARTY et al. v. KANSAS
392 U.S. 308·Supreme Court of the United States·1968
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White dissent for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice White’s dissenting opinion in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123, 138 (1968).
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
McCARTY et al. v. KANSAS.
No. 548,
Misc.
Decided June 10, 1968.
Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General of Kansas, and /. Richard Foth, Richard E. Oxandale, and Daniel D. Metz, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted with respect to petitioner Boyd. The judgment of the Kansas Supreme Court is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123. See Roberts v. Russell, ante, p. 293. The petition for a writ of certiorari with respect to petitioner McCarty is denied.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White dissent for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice White’s dissenting opinion in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123, 138 (1968).