UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LOUIS JOSEPH MARION MARVIN IVES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings concerning specific issues in light of Supreme Court precedent.
The Supreme Court vacated this court's prior opinion and remanded the case for further consideration in light of new precedent. The court determined t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Vacating Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Our opinion in this case, 504 F. 2d 935, was filed August 9, 1974. Ives petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari which was granted, 421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97.
Thereafter, the Court ordered “that the judgment of the said United States Court of Appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, vacated; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975).” See 421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97 (1975).
An examination of Drope makes clear that the only issues which the Court has directed us to consider further are found in part II of our opinion. Therefore, we reinstate parts I, III and IV of our opinion.
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings pertaining to the issues contained in part II of our opinion in light of Drope, as well as DeKaplany v. Enomoto, 540 F. 2d 975 (9th Cir. 1976) (en banc).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hudson v. Rushen, 686 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1982)
-
United States v. Panza, 612 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1979)
-
United States v. Martinez, 883 F.2d 750 (9th Cir. 1989)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975)
- Geza de Kaplany v. Enomoto, 540 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1976)
- United States v. Ives, 504 F.2d 935 (9th Cir. 1974)
- United States v. Mandujano (W.D. Pa. 1975)