Lopinson v. Pennsylvania, 392 U.S. 647 (1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Lopinson v. Pennsylvania, 392 U.S. 647 (1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
139 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commonwealth v. Bastone (pa, 1976-03-17) · Strongest negative: Commonwealth v. Bedford (pasuperct, 2012-05-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
examined Vacated Commonwealth v. Bedford (3×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Comment to Pa.R.E. 405 citing Commonwealth v. Lopinson, 427 Pa. 284 , 234 A.2d 552 (1967), vacated by Lopinson v. Pennsylvania, 392 U.S. 647 , 88 S.Ct. 2277 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1344 (1968).
examined Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Bastone (3×)
Pa. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Lopinson, 427 Pa. 284, 302-03 , 234 A. 2d 552, 563 , vacated on other grounds, 392 U.S. 647 , 88 S.Ct. 2277 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1344 (1967).
cited Cited "see" United States of America, Ex Rel., Frank Earl Senk, S-0026 v. J. R. Brierley, Superintendent
3rd Cir. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Singer v. Myers, 392 U.S. 647 , 88 S.Ct. 2307 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1358 (1968), rev’g per curiam 384 F.2d 279 (3d Cir. 1967).
discussed Cited "see" United States of America Ex Rel. Pasquale Delle Rose v. J. Edwin Lavallee, Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility (2×)
2d Cir. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See 392 U.S. 647 , 88 S.Ct. 2307 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1358 (1968).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Edgar M. Ellis v. C. J. Fitzharris, Department of Corrections of the State of California (2×)
9th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Singer v. Myers, 392 U.S. 647 , 88 S.Ct. 2307 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1358 ; Boles v. Stevenson, 379 U.S. 43, 45-46 , 85 S.Ct. 174 , 13 L.Ed.2d 109 ; Smith v. State of Texas, 5 Cir., 395 F.2d 958, 964 . 21 Consistent therewith, the judgment denying Ellis' application for a writ of habeas corpus is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court to allow the state a reasonable time to afford Ellis a new trial or, if the state prefers, an evidentiary hearing limited to the question of the voluntariness of his confession and other incriminating statements received in evidence. 10 If the st…
Lopinson
v.
Pennsylvania
1133.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 17, 1968.
392 U.S. 647
Lester J. Schaffer for petitioner in No. 1133, and Howard M. Nazor and Gordon L. Nazor for petitioner in No. 1700, Mise., Michael J. Rotko and Arlen Specter for respondent in No. 1133; Mr. Rotko, William H. Wolf, Jr., and Mr. Specter for respondent in No. 1095, Mise.; and Joseph E. Mahoney for respondent in No. 1700, Mise.
Citriam, Black, Harlan, Illinois.
Cited by 42 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Per Citriam.

The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in No. 1095, Misc., and No. 1700, Misc., are granted and the petitions for writs of certiorari in all three cases are granted. Without reaching the petitioners’ other claims, the judgments are vacated and the cases remanded for reconsideration in the light of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510.

Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Black’s dissenting opinion in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 532. Mr. Justice White dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 540.

Dissent

Mr. Justice Black,

dissenting.

In all three of these cases the Court remands to the state courts on one single constitutional claim of petitioners without reaching other constitutional claims raised by them. The result is that after the state courts rule on the single remand issue this Court will undoubtedly be called on to pass on the other issues which the Court refuses to decide. At the very least this means postponement of a final decision in these cases a year or two years or three years, unless, that is, this Court should, on the second review, choose once more to decide the cases piecemeal. Piecemeal dispositions of criminal cases inevitably cause delays and hamper enforcement of the criminal law's and there is a lot of truth in the old adage that delay is a defendant’s best lawyer. See Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, where a murder sentence was reversed nine years after the murder. It[*649] is true that under Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, a certain amount of delay is inevitable in criminal cases, but that is not true in these cases where the issues are squarely presented to us here and now.