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

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

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

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Doughty

Respondent

Maxwell

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

Same Parties Doughty vs Maxwell Same Subject Land Acquisition