Contracts · MBE-tested
MILLER v. RHAY, PENITENTIARY SUPERINTENDENT
384 U.S. 892·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
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
MILLER v. RHAY, PENITENTIARY SUPERINTENDENT.
No. 1180.
Decided June 20, 1966.
Charles Horowitz, by appointment of the Court, post, p. 902, for petitioner.
John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Stephen C. Way, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
In light of the representations of the Attorney General of Washington and upon an examination of the entire record, the motion to remand is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of its opinion in Dillenburg v. Maxwell, — Wash. 2d —, 413 P. 2d 940.