James P. Cantillon v. Superior Court Of California

Good Law
442 F.2d 1338·1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9781
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 7, 197125121California213 words

Opinion

Opinion

442 F.2d 1338 James P. CANTILLON, Petitioner and Appellee, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and Peter Pitchess, Co-Respondents, PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Real Party in Interest, Appellants. No. 25121. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 7, 1971. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Francis C. Whelan, Judge, 305 F.Supp. 304 . Douglas C. Miller (argued), Jean Louise Webster, Deputy County Counsel, John D. Maharg, County Counsel, Los Angeles, Cal., Arnold T. Guminski, Deputy Dist. Atty. (argued), Maurice H. Oppenheim, Deputy Dist. Atty., Harry Wood, Head, Appellate Division, Evelle J. Younger, Dist. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants. James P. Cantillon (argued), in pro. per. Before CHAMBERS, HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 The case is remanded for consideration to the district court in the light of the intervening decision of Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 , 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed. 2d 446 (1970). 2 This court recognizes that the Supreme Court placed express limitations on its opinion. 3 After reconsideration, a new appeal, if one is…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.