Contracts · MBE-tested
HOLLAND et al. v. HOGAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al.
392 U.S. 654·Supreme Court of the United States·1968
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.
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
HOLLAND et al. v. HOGAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al.
No. 653.
Decided June 17, 1968.
Robert Abelow, Marshall C. Berger, and Donald J. Williamson for appellants.
Frank S. Hogan, H. Richard Uviller, and Michael R. Stack, each pro se, and for Yasgur et al., J. Lee Rankin, Norman Redlich, and Stanley Buchsbaum for Adler, and Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, pro se, and Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorney General, for Lefkowitz, appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for further consideration in light of Gardner v. Broderick, ante, p. 273, and George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid, ante, p. 286.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.