Contracts · MBE-tested
BUJESE v. UNITED STATES
392 U.S. 297·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
BUJESE v. UNITED STATES.
No. 440,
Misc.
Decided June 10, 1968.
Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Marshall Tamor Golding for the United States.
[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 Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 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).