Case: Muhlenbroich v. Heinze, Warden; O'Rourke v. New York; Ex parte Schlette; Jackson v. Heinze, Warden; Barnes v. Maxwell, Warden; Yarborough v. Ohio et al.; Justus v. New Mexico; Antipas v. Overholser, Hospital Superintendent; Phillips v. Taylor, Warden; Raymond v. Randolph et al.; Harrell v. Reid, Jail Superintendent; Furman v. Department of Public Safety of Illinois et al.; Rinkes v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent, et al.; Schmitt v. Wisconsin et al.; and Smith v. New Mexico
Abbreviation: Muhlenbroich v. Heinze
Decision Date: 1962-02-19
Docket Number: No. 652; No. 655; No. 673; No. 690; No. 696; No. 708; No. 777; No. 803; No. 808; No. 813; No. 823; No. 845; No. 865; No. 904; No. 946
Citation: 368 U.S. 981
Volume: 368
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Muhlenbroich v. Heinze, Warden; O’Rourke v. New York; Ex parte Schlette; Jackson v. Heinze, Warden; Barnes v. Maxwell, Warden; Yarborough v. Ohio et al.; Justus v. New Mexico; Antipas v. Overholser, Hospital Superintendent; Phillips v. Taylor, Warden; Raymond v. Randolph et al.; Harrell v. Reid, Jail Superintendent; Furman v. Department of Public Safety of Illinois et al.; Rinkes v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent, et al.; Schmitt v. Wisconsin et al.; and Smith v. New Mexico.
Judges: 
Pages: 981–981

Head Matter:
No. 652,
No. 655,
No. 673,
No. 690,
No. 696,
No. 708,
No. 777,
No. 803,
No. 808,
No. 813,
No. 823,
No. 845,
No. 865,
No. 904,
No. 946,
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Muhlenbroich v. Heinze, Warden; O’Rourke v. New York; Ex parte Schlette; Jackson v. Heinze, Warden; Barnes v. Maxwell, Warden; Yarborough v. Ohio et al.; Justus v. New Mexico; Antipas v. Overholser, Hospital Superintendent; Phillips v. Taylor, Warden; Raymond v. Randolph et al.; Harrell v. Reid, Jail Superintendent; Furman v. Department of Public Safety of Illinois et al.; Rinkes v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent, et al.; Schmitt v. Wisconsin et al.; and Smith v. New Mexico.

Opinion:
Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.