Supreme Court of the United States, 1967

Umans v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 18, 1967 · Harlan, Marshall

389 U.S. 80; 88 S. Ct. 253; 19 L. Ed. 2d 255; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2932 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Edward Brodsky argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was William Esbitt., Sidney M. Glaser argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg.

Cases that cite this one

61 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. Richard Beltram and Andres Colon (2d Cir. 1968)
Hennigan v. State (Wyo. 1987)
Government of Virgin Islands v. Brathwaite (3d Cir. 1986)
Waugh v. State (Tenn. 1978)
United States v. Charles R. Harary (2d Cir. 1972)
United States v. Martin Cohen (2d Cir. 1968)
State v. Anderson (Utah 1980)
United States v. David Bernard Barash (2d Cir. 1969)
United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California (District Court, District of Columbia 1996)
United States v. Hipkins (District Court, D. Maryland 1991)
State v. Moats (Wis. 1990)
United States v. Anthony M. Scotto and Anthony Anastasio (2d Cir. 1980)
People v. Willie (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)
United States v. Fenster (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1978)
United States v. Leo Crutchfield (9th Cir. 1977)
In re Petition to Compel Testimony of Tuso (N.J. 1977)
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brewster (Md. 1977)
United States v. Charles D. Erb and Franklin S. Deboer (2d Cir. 1976)
United States v. Sperling (District Court, S.D. New York 1976)
United States v. Mackey (District Court, E.D. New York 1975)
Maestas v. District Court (Colo. 1975)
Maestas v. District Court (Colo. 1975)
United States v. Daniel B. Brewster (D.C. Cir. 1974)
United States v. Wilson Ramirez (2d Cir. 1973)

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 writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

Mr. Justice Harlan

would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Waterman’s opinion for that court in United States v. Umans, 368 F. 2d 725.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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