Majority
p. 994No. 201. Benton v. Maryland.
Ct. Sp. App. Md. [Certiorari granted, 392 U. S. 925 .] Case restored to the docket for reargument on March 24, 1969, limited to the following question, not specified in the original writ: Does the “concurrent sentence doctrine,” enunciated in Hira-bayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81 , 105, and subsequent cases, have continuing validity in light of such decisions as Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 , 633, n. 2, Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54 , Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234 , 237-238, and Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40 , 50-58? The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States and to participate in oral argument.
Cases cited
- Hirabayashi v. United States 320 U. S. 81 p. 994
- Ginsberg v. New York 390 U. S. 629 p. 994
- Peyton v. Rowe 391 U. S. 54 p. 994
- Carafas v. LaVallee 391 U. S. 234 p. 994
- Sibron v. New York 392 U. S. 40 p. 994