Doughty Vs. Maxwell

Doughty vs Maxwell

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Apr-22-1963

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100641

CiteSignal

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/100641
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Apr-22-1963
Case Number: 372 U.S. 781

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Doughty

Respondent

Maxwell

Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Your first-pass case note in minutes — an 18-section AI Brief on this judgment, plus case-scoped chat. Part of AI Studio with Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind.

Try free for 7 days

Credentials emailed — then log in for AI Brief on this judgment. Already have an account? · Learn more

Excerpt

doughty v. maxwell - 372 u.s. 781 (1963) u.s. supreme court doughty v. maxwell, 372 u.s. 781 (1963) 372 u.s. 781 doughty v. maxwell, warden. on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of ohio. no. 516, misc. decided april 22, 1963. certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. reported below: 173 ohio st. 407, 183 n. e. 2d 368. petitioner pro se. mark mcelroy, attorney general of ohio, and james e. rattan, assistant attorney general, for respondent. per curiam. the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of gideon v. wainwright, 372 u.s. 335 . page 372 u.s. 781, 782

Full Judgment

DOUGHTY v. MAXWELL - 372 U.S. 781 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court DOUGHTY v. MAXWELL, 372 U.S. 781 (1963) 372 U.S. 781

DOUGHTY v. MAXWELL, WARDEN.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 516, Misc.
Decided April 22, 1963.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Reported below: 173 Ohio St. 407, 183 N. E. 2d 368.

Petitioner pro se.

Mark McElroy, Attorney General of Ohio, and James E. Rattan, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 .

Page 372 U.S. 781, 782