Supreme Court of the United States, 1961

Castle v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 16, 1961 · Per Curiam

368 U.S. 13; 82 S. Ct. 123; 7 L. Ed. 2d 75; 1961 U.S. LEXIS 327 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Petitioner pro se., Solicitof General Cox for the United States.

Cases that cite this one

57 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Edward Cabbell v. United States (8th Cir. 1980)
People v. Cox (Ill. 1972)
Ketchum v. United States (District Court, D. Maryland 1970)
State v. American Theatre Corporation (Neb. 1975)
Donald Lee King v. United States (10th Cir. 1967)
S. J. Wilburn v. United States (5th Cir. 1964)
Clyde Johnson v. United States (6th Cir. 1964)
United States v. Feldman (District Court, D. Nevada 1964)
United States v. N. John Fontana, II (1st Cir. 1991)
United States v. Norman Z. Flick, United States of America v. James R. Pierce (7th Cir. 1975)
State v. Knott (R.I. 1973)
Harold Ray Amer v. United States (8th Cir. 1966)
Stanley v. Kessel, Vance W. Heideman, and George Harding Bryant v. United States (8th Cir. 1962)
People v. Hartfield (Ill. 2022)
United States v. Bates (4th Cir. 1999)
United States v. Aaron Keith Lovett (10th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Peter A. Makres, Also Known as Jerome K. Callahan (7th Cir. 1991)
United States v. Makres (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1990)
Horace E. Hollis v. United States (8th Cir. 1986)
United States v. David Martin (6th Cir. 1986)
United States v. Peter Kitowski (11th Cir. 1984)
United States v. Kenneth Dale Johnson (8th Cir. 1984)
United States v. Marvin Leslie Mathis, Jr. (10th Cir. 1982)
United States v. Michael L. Green (5th Cir. 1981)
United States v. Hugh Reed, Jay D. Hatton, Kerry M. Martin, Thomas C. Lawson, and Charles M. Terrell (6th Cir. 1981)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. We are in agreement with the representations of the Solicitor General that, under the principles announced in Bell v. United States, 349 U. S. 81, the petitioner was guilty of but a single offense under 18 U. S. C. § 2314. In light of such representations and upon consideration of the entire record, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to remit to the District Court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.