Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Holland Vs. Hogan

Holland vs Hogan

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-17-1968
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101926

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
392 U.S. 654
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

Holland

Respondent

Hogan

Excerpt

holland v. hogan - 392 u.s. 654 (1968) u.s. supreme court holland v. hogan, 392 u.s. 654 (1968) 392 u.s. 654 holland et al. v. hogan, district attorney, et al. appeal from the united states district court for the southern district of new york. no. 653. decided june 17, 1968. 272 f. supp. 855, vacated and remanded. 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. 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. page 392 u.s. 654, 655

Full Judgment

HOLLAND v. HOGAN - 392 U.S. 654 (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court HOLLAND v. HOGAN, 392 U.S. 654 (1968) 392 U.S. 654

HOLLAND ET AL. v. HOGAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK. No. 653.
Decided June 17, 1968.

272 F. Supp. 855, vacated and remanded.

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.

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.

Page 392 U.S. 654, 655



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial