Contracts · MBE-tested
WILLIAMS v. FLORIDA
392 U.S. 306·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
WILLIAMS v. FLORIDA.
No. 279,
Misc.
Decided June 10, 1968.
Earl Fairdoth, Attorney General of Florida, and Wallace E. Allbritton, Assistant Attorney 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. The judgment of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123. See Roberts v. Russell, ante, p. 293.
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).