Oister v. Pennsylvania, 378 U.S. 568 (1964). · Go Syfert
Oister v. Pennsylvania, 378 U.S. 568 (1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: John F. Bogacki and Mary Ann Bogacki, a Partnership Doing Business as Royal Lanes v. American MacHine & Foundry Company, a Corporation (ca3, 1969-11-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" John F. Bogacki and Mary Ann Bogacki, a Partnership Doing Business as Royal Lanes v. American MacHine & Foundry Company, a Corporation (4×)
3rd Cir. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Greenberg, 143 Pa. Super. 203 , 17 A.2d 698, 701 (1941), Commonwealth v. Nasuti, 180 Pa.Super. 279, 284 , 119 A.2d 642, 643-644 (1956), and Commonwealth v. Oister, 201 Pa. Super. 251, 254-256 , 191 A.2d 851, 852-853 (1963), rev’d on other grounds, 378 U.S. 568 , 84 S.Ct. 1926 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1964). 14 We have examined all other issues raised by the Bogackis on this appeal not hereinbefore referred to and find them to be without merit.
examined Cited "see" United States of America Ex Rel. Edwin Gockley v. David N. Myers, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania (4×)
3rd Cir. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Senk v. Pennsylvania, 378 U.S. 562 , 84 S.Ct. 1928 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1964) and Oister v. Pennsylvania, 378 U.S. 568 , 84 S.Ct. 1926 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
OISTER
v.
PENNSYLVANIA.
682 Misc.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 22, 1964.
378 U.S. 568
Per Curiam.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Joseph Knox Fornance for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court in Jackson v. Denno, ante, p. 368.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Jackson v. Denno, supra.