Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

442 F.2d 1338

Docket No. 25121.

Cantillon v. Superior Court of California

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1971-06-07

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1971

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Williams v. Florida · Baldwin v. New York Williams

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1971-06-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

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 desired, should be filed. So far as applicable the old record may be transferred to the new appeal on motion or stipulation.

/442/f2d/1338 · .json · Public domain