text:
    No. 612.
    Del Guercio v. James.

      John C. Marbach for petitioner.

      Reuben Sirlin for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 605.
    Hoban v. United States.

      Carl L. Shipley, Rufus W. Peckham, Jr., and Samuel Resnicoff for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 606.
    Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp.

      Dale M. Stucky for petitioner.

      Wal-ther E. Wyss, George R. Clark and Malcolm Miller for respondent.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 607.
    Precise Imports Corp. et al. v. Kelly, Collector of Customs of the Port of New York, et al.

      Jacob W. Friedman for petitioners.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer for respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 608.
    Knohl v. United States.

      Murray I. Gurfein for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 610.
    Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. Ratay.

      Alexander Black for petitioner.

      Samuel J. Goldstein for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 613.
    George Epcar Co. v. United States.

      Edwin Jason Dryer for petitioner.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Acting Assistant Attorney General Eardley and John C. Eldridge for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 615.
    Aro Corp. v. Citron.

      George B. Newitt and J. Robert Maxwell for petitioner.

      Eugene F. Buell for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 617.
    General Precision, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.

      David L. Benetar for petitioner.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 621.
    Barbato, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. Livingston National Bank.

      Allan L. Tumarkin for petitioner.

      Herman D. Michels and Roger L. Toner for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 622.
    Brandywine-Main Line Radio, Inc., et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.

      Roger Robb and H. Donald Kistler for petitioners.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer and Henry Getter for respondents.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 624.
    Boston & Providence Railroad Stockholders Development Group v. Bartlett, Trustee in Bankruptcy, et al.

      Armistead B. Rood for petitioner.

      James Garfield, James Wm. Moore and Robert W. Blanchette for respondents Smith et al., Trustees of the property of New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., Robert W. Meserve for respondent Boston & Providence Railroad Corp. Stockholders Committee, Charles Y. Wadsworth for respondent Boston & Providence Railroad Corp., and Acting Solicitor General Spritzer for respondent United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. (See No. 661, Mise., supra, p. 967.) Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 625.
    Drew v. Lawrimore et al.

      E. N. Zeigler for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold for respondents.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 626.
    Deane Hill Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville et al.

      William Earl Badgett for petitioner.

      Milton P. Rice, Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee, for respondent McCanless.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 631.
    Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux.

      Malcolm L. Monroe and Andrew P. Carter for petitioner.

      Paul M. Hebert for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 634.
    Brennan v. Udall, Secretary of the Interior.

      John J. Wilson for petitioner.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Acting Assistant Attorney General Williams, Roger P. Marquis and S. Billingsley Hill for respondent.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 640.
    Portland Cement Co. of Utah v. United States.

      Gerald R. Miller for petitioner.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Acting Assistant Attorney General Pugh and Grant W. Wiprud for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 642.
    Zusmann, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. National Acceptance Co.

      Morris W. Macey for petitioner.

      Nolan B. Harmon for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 647.
    Goon Mee Heung v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

      Joseph F. O’Neil for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Paul C. Sumrmtt for respondent.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 633.
    Crosby Valve & Gage Co., formerly Crosby Steam Gage & Valve Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

      Matthew Brown for petitioner.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Bogovin, Harry Baum and Albert J. Beveridge III for respondent.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 643.
    Agajan et al. v. Clark, Attorney General.

      A. Noble McCartney for petitioners.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 644.
    Frohmann v. United States.

      Albert J. Haller for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin and Joseph M. Howard for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 646.
    Helmsley v. City of Detroit et al.

      James P. Mattimoe for petitioner.

      Julius C. Pliskow for City of Detroit et al., and Aloysius J. Suchy and William F. Koney for County of Wayne et al., respondents.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 650.
    Manion v. Holzman et al.

      Francis D. Morrissey for petitioner.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 651.
    Gladstone et al. v. Board of Education of the City of New York.

      Morris Weissberg for petitioners.

      J. Lee Rankin and Stanley Buchsbaum for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 652.
    Bard et al. v. Dasho et al.

      Allen E. Tkroop for Bard et al., and Samuel Weisbard for Lauhoff, petitioners.

      Malcolm M. Gaynor for respondents.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 654.
    Farkas v. Texas Instruments, Inc., et al.

      William D. Neary for respondent Texas Instruments, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 655.
    Lone Star Steel Co. v. McGee.

      Spencer C. Belyea III for petitioner.

      Franklin Jones, Sr., for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 662.
    Ets-Hokin & Galvan, Inc. v. Maas Transport, Inc., et al.

      Jesse Feldman for petitioner.

      Dean Winkjer for Maas Transport, Inc., and Frank F. Jestrdb for Lawrence Transportation, respondents.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88.
    Brown v. United States.

      Raymond W. Bergan for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 471.
    Peeler et ux. v. United States.

      J. René Hawkins for petitioners.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Grant W. Wiprud and Thomas L. Stapleton for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 475.
    Wood et ux. v. United States.

      Clarence P. Brazill, Jr., for petitioners.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Grant W. Wiprud and Thomas L. Stapleton for the United States.


text:
    No. 604.
    No. 750.
    Royalton Stone Corp. et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Royalton Stone Corp. et al.

      John G. Putnam, Jr., for petitioners in No. 604.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin and Grant W. Wiprud for petitioner in No. 750 and for respondent in No. 604.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 379 F. 2d 298.


text:
    No. 683.
    Green v. United States.

      William R. Frazier for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Acting Assistant Attorney General Pugh and Grant W. Wiprud for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 43,
    Misc.
    Kent v. United States.

      Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70,
    Misc.
    Blackwell v. United States.

      William J. Garber for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 540,
    Misc.
    O’Bery v. United States.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 603,
    Misc.
    Schack v. Boardman, U. S. Attorney.

      Solicitor General Gris-wold for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


author: Mr. Chief Justice Warren, Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. 145.
    Becker et al. v. Philco Corp.

      Robert Sheriffs Moss for petitioners.

      Laidler B. Mackall and Karl E. Wolf for respondent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Chief Justice Warren,

dissenting.

This is an important case affecting the rights of millions of workers to vindicate their reputations and to make a living in the military-private industrial complex. See Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474, 507, n. 31 (1959).

According to petitioners, this case presents the following question:

“Is a government contractor endowed with the attributes of a Federal Agency and is it and are its employees clothed with unqualified or absolute privilege to falsely and maliciously defame other employees in reporting a loss, compromise, or suspected compromise of classified information, solely by reason of (1) having contracted with the United States Government to furnish it with supplies or services which are required and necessary to the National Defense, and (2) in connection therewith having entered into a security agreement with the United States Government under the terms of which it has agreed to report the loss, compromise, or suspected compromise of classified information.” Petition for Cert., p. 2.

Petitioners brought this action against respondent Philco Corporation, their employer, for an alleged defamation made in a report to the Department of Defense under the terms of a contract for the manufacture of defense items. The complaint alleged that the report contained both false and malicious statements concerning petitioners and resulted in the withdrawal of their security clearances and thus the loss of their jobs. On respondent’s motion for summary judgment, the District Court dismissed the complaint, holding the communication absolutely privileged. 234 F. Supp. 10 (D. C. E. D. Ya. 1964). Placing unjustified reliance on the authority of the principal opinion in Barr v. Matteo, 360 U. S. 564 (1959), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 372 F. 2d 771 (1967). In granting an absolute privilege to government employees at the expense of the individual’s right to be free from defamation, Barr v. Matteo extended the earlier decisions of this Court to what I and others considered to be the breaking point. That opinion did not command a majority of this Court then, and only one of those who joined it is on this Court today. The conclusion there was reached by balancing

“on the one hand, the protection of the individual citizen against pecuniary damage caused by oppressive or malicious action on the part of officials of the Federal Government; and on the other, the protection of the public interest by shielding responsible governmental officers against the harassment and inevitable hazards of vindictive or ill-founded damages suits brought on account of action taken in the exercise of their official responsibilities.” Barr v. Matteo, supra, at 565.

The deprivation of the employees’ rights in the present case is justified in the following manner: By Executive Order, the Secretary of Defense is empowered through regulations to safeguard classified information. Pursuant to that power, the Secretary has issued an Industrial Security Manual which requires contractors to protect all classified information by maintaining a system of security controls and to report any loss, compromise, or suspected compromise of that information to the Department of Defense. The Secretary enters into a Security Agreement with his contractors to implement the provisions of the Manual. The Secretary does not attempt to clothe the contractor with any immunity from a civil action for damages caused by defamatory reports.

From this scheme to protect classified information, the court below took the additional and unwarranted step of conferring an absolute privilege on the corporation:

“So it was that the company and such of its employees as were confidants were answerable for keeping the nation’s secrets, as fully as if they were governed by the oath of a Federal official. Closely performing his duties and charged with equal responsibility and loyalty, we think the company and its trusted personnel were imbued with the official’s character, and partake of his immunity to liability, whenever and wherever he would enjoy the absolute privilege.” 372 F. 2d 771, 774.

No authority is quoted for this statement for the obvious reason that there is none.

I do not cast any doubt on the general powers of the Secretary of Defense in safeguarding classified information, nor on the Executive Order, nor on the Industrial Security Manual, nor on the Security Agreement entered into in this case. None of these are pertinent to our decision. Nor is the truth or falsity of the allegation that Philco maliciously or falsely defamed the petitioners of any relevance. All the case involves is whether a private corporation under a Security Agreement with the Government is entitled to an absolute privilege to report with “actual malice” information to the Government that results in the deprivation of the workers’ employment and reputation.

We have not granted to private citizens a blanket immunity from legal liability for defaming public officials. Instead, we have held that a public official may recover for defamatory falsehoods relating to his official conduct if he can prove the statement was made with “actual malice.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964). I can see absolutely no justification for granting to a corporation contracting with the Government a greater privilege to defame than we have accorded to private citizens in commenting upon the conduct of public officials. This seems to me to be a complete inversion of First Amendment rights. A qualified privilege is clearly sufficient in both situations to protect the paramount public interest in the free flow of information.

I disagreed with Barr v. Matteo, but even in that case it was said there were “other sanctions than civil tort suits available to deter the executive official” from making defamatory statements in press releases. 360 U. S. 564, 576. None of those “other sanctions” are present in the instant case. While a defamatory press release might subject the government official to both public censure and internal discipline from his superiors, the secrecy surrounding Philco’s communication insulates the defamer from such sanctions. Since the Department of Defense has no disciplinary power over the employees of a private corporation for defamatory statements, internal sanctions are unlikely. It will also be much more difficult for the Department of Defense to recognize a malicious and false libel prepared by a private concern doing business with the Government. It follows then that even assuming, arguendo, that internal reports made by a governmental employee to his superior should have an absolute privilege since the superior will be able to evaluate the accuracy of a statement concerning conditions within his own department, this does not justify extending the privilege to communications from private corporations. Thus, the privilege has been conferred in this case without the normal concomitants of such protection, leaving the employees’ reputation highly vulnerable to injury by a corporate executive who has no direct responsibility to the public.

It is difficult for me to understand why the importance of this case is not apparent to the Court. Personally, I cannot countenance this indiscriminate extension of Barr v. Matteo. I would grant certiorari and invite the Government to make known its opinion of what the national interest might be.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

I agree with The Chief Justice that this is an important case which warrants the attention of the Court. It puts into focus several important issues, among them an aspect of the modern corporation which has become vital in the Federal Government’s procurement program. Professor Galbraith has referred to it in his recent book The New Industrial State:

“Increasingly it will be recognized that the mature corporation, as it develops, becomes part of the larger administrative complex associated with the state. In time the line between the two will disappear. Men will look back in amusement at the pretense that once caused people to refer to General Dynamics and North American Aviation and A. T. & T. as private business.
“Though this recognition will not be universally welcomed, it will be healthy. There is always a presumption in social matters in favor of reality as opposed to myth. The autonomy of the techno-structure is, to repeat yet again, a functional necessity of the industrial system. But the goals this autonomy serves allow some range of choice. If the mature corporation is recognized to be part of the penumbra of the state, it will be more strongly in the service of social goals. It cannot plead its inherently private character or its subordination to the market as cover for the pursuit of different goals of particular interest to itself. The public agency has an unquestioned tendency to pursue goals that reflect its own interest and convenience and to adapt social objective thereto. But it cannot plead this as a superior right. There may well be danger in this association of public and economic power. But it is less if it is recognized.” Id., at 393-394.

I think the time has come for us to explore this problem; and the setting of the present case shows how pressing the problem is.

       Exec. Order No. 10865, 3 CFR 1959-1963 Comp., p. 398, as amended by Exec. Order No. 10909, 3 CFR 1959-1963 Comp., p. 437.

       The Department of Defense Industrial Security Manual for Safeguarding Classified Information (Sept. 21, 1956, rev. Dec. 31, 1962) provides in part:
      “6. Reports
      “The contractor shall submit immediately to the cognizant security officer—

        “b. A report, classified if appropriate, of any loss, compromise or suspected compromise of classified information.
      “14.1. Loss, Compromise or Suspected Compromise of Classified Information

        “d. In the event of loss, compromise, or suspected compromise of classified information outside of a facility the contractor shall establish procedures requiring that the person discovering the loss, compromise or suspected compromise shall immediately—
      “(1) Notify the local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and furnish sufficient information to assist in identification of the information (if the loss, compromise or suspected compromise occurs outside the United States, the nearest United States authorities shall be notified in lieu of the Federal Bureau of Investigation); and
      “(2) Report the loss to the contractor by the fastest means of communication.
      “e. The military department assigned security cognizance shall conduct such further inquiry as may be required.”

       However, since this matter arises on motion for summary judgment, we are required to take the allegations of the complaint as true.


text:
    No. 657.
    Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Johnston.

      Clyde J. Watts for petitioner.

      Payne H. Ratner for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 664.
    Ball et al. v. Eastern Coal Corp. et al.

      Jean L. Auxier for petitioners.

      Albert S. Kemper, Jr., for Eastern Coal Corp., and Edward L. Carey, Harrison Combs and M. E. Boiarsky for United Mine Workers of America et al., respondents.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 323.
    Bennett et al. v. California.

      Hiram W. Kwan for petitioners.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 394.
    Hale v. Town of Vinton.

      Stuart A. Barbour, Jr., for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 588.
    Jackson et al. v. United States.

      James J. Bierbower and Harry A. Inman for petitioners.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Acting Assistant Attorney General Eardley and Alan S. Rosenthal for the United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 601.
    Wyoming et al. v. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, et al.

      James E. Barrett, Attorney General, and Sterling C. Case, First Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Wyoming, and A. G. McClintock and James B. Diggs
      for Gulf Oil Corp., petitioners.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Weisl, Roger P. Marquis and Edmund B. Clark for Udall et al., and James H. Anderson and E. T. Lazear for Union Pacific Railroad Co., respondents.


text:
    No. 596.
    Brulay v. United States.

      Peter J. Hughes for petitioner.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 629.
    Boles, Warden v. Sheftic et al.

      C. Donald Robertson, Attorney General of West Virginia, and Morton I. Taber and Leo Catsonis, Assistant Attorneys General, for petitioner.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 636.
    Warner v. Pennsylvania.

      Joseph Smith for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 197,
    Misc.
    Hillery v. California.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, and Edsel W. Haws, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 314,
    Misc.
    Dunn v. California.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Deraid E. Granberg and Gloria F. DeHart, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 593.
    Arceneaux et al. v. Pfister.

      W. Scott Wilkinson for petitioners.

      C. Ellis Henican and C. Ellis Henican, Jr., for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


author: Mr. Justice Black,

text:
    No. 483.
    Detenber et al., Administratrices v. American Universal Insurance Co.

      Josephine P. Hughett and Henry G. Fischer for petitioners.

      John P. Sandidge for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black,

dissenting.

I would grant certiorari here and reverse the action of the District Court and the Court of Appeals for rendering a summary judgment against petitioners in flagrant disregard of the right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. The case arose in this way. Two children riding in a car were killed in a collision with a bus. The car was driven by one Clark, who was protected by a policy of liability insurance issued by the respondent, American Universal Insurance Company. The insurance company undertook the defense of Clark in a suit for damages brought by petitioners on behalf of the deceased children. Clark claimed that the lawyer for the insurance company conducted his defense in bad faith and assigned to petitioners his claim for damages against the company.

During the settlement negotiations prior to the suit against Clark and the bus company, the insurance company lawyer urged lack of actionable negligence by Clark, and Clark later testified (in depositions taken in relation to the present action) that he went to trial with the understanding that his defense would be lack of negligence. On the day of trial of the action for damages against Clark a lawyer appeared for the insurance company and filed an amended answer in which the lawyer — on behalf of his client Clark — asserted the defense of assumption of risk, charging that the deceased children had known Clark was drunk and should not have ridden with him. The insurance company lawyer never discussed with his client Clark the alternative defenses available to him or the significance of the filing of the amended complaint. Indeed Clark was never even advised of the fact that an amended complaint had been filed, in which he was pleading his own drunkenness in an effort to escape liability for damages. As the Court of Appeals noted in the present case, no satisfactory explanation has ever been offered for these omissions. At trial, the lawyer not only abandoned the position that the accident had been caused solely by the negligence of the bus driver but made every effort to put Clark in the worst possible fight. He offered evidence that Clark had been speeding and had gone through a stop sign at the intersection, and in his summation he urged the jury to disbelieve his own client’s testimony to the contrary. In addition, he permitted Clark’s guilty plea in a related criminal action to be introduced without objection, and he gave Clark no opportunity to explain it. This was contrary to a specific agreement between insurance company counsel and Clark’s personal lawyer (who did not take part in the trial of the civil case). The general tenor of this so-called “defense” is indicated by the insurance company lawyer’s closing argument to the jury:

“I have attempted to prove that this young man was drunk when he was driving that car on Saturday night, the 15th of April. I have attempted to prove that he was operating it recklessly, and that doesn’t sound like a lawyer on a man’s side to try to prove his own client is drunk, does it?
“[N]o one has come to this boy’s aid and told you that he stopped at that stop sign. . . . David Oursler gave a statement and he said, T am sure Michael didn’t stop.’ These things I knew and they convinced me, as they must you, that this young man was at fault in that accident.
“The thing that is bothering me worse than anything else in trying to defend him was a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court. Right here across the street Judge Knight entered a judgment, for this young man in person, being charged with wilful, felonious, negligent, reckless, careless and wanton operation of an automobile, . . . and there in person [Clark] pleaded guilty to that offense. . . . [T]his young man was found guilty of negligent homicide. Now, presented with that situation, believing as I do believe, I felt then and I feel now that a jury of twelve honest people is going to reach the conclusion that this young man, by witnesses and by his own admissions, caused this accident.”

This defense was theoretically in Clark’s interest since it purported to offer him hope of avoiding liability entirely. But it was a dangerous defense for Clark since if the jury refused to charge the plaintiffs with assumption of the risk, the damages would certainly be higher— and the amount apportioned against Clark rather than against the bus company would certainly be greater— than if the no-negligence defense had been attempted. The insurance company’s interest, however, was obviously different since from its point of view the assumption-of-risk approach had no disadvantages. Its liability was limited to $10,000 under the policy and if the strategy inflated the damages above this figure, Clark would be responsible to pay the additional amount out of his own pocket.

I agree with the courts below that this is a cause of action created by the law of Kentucky, and I accept the finding that under the law of Kentucky bad faith “ ‘is not simply bad judgment. It is not merely negligence. . . . It implies conscious doing of wrong. ... It partakes of the nature of fraud.’ ” Harrod v. Meridian Mutual Insurance Co., 389 S. W. 2d 74, 76 (Ky. 1964). The basis for my disagreement is that I cannot see how this evidence of bad faith on the part of the insurance company lawyer can be considered insufficient to make a case for the jury.

This record establishes for me a, rather convincing case of bad faith; at the very least I think a jury of 12 ordinary men, with a common-sense understanding of such matters, could reasonably conclude that the insurance company’s conduct in this case amounted to conscious wrongdoing. By ordering summary judgment for the defendant, the courts below simply imposed their own notions as to the most plausible inference to be drawn from this record, thereby denying the petitioners their constitutionally protected right to have their case decided by 12 ordinary citizens.


text:
    No. 602.
    Jones, Tutrix v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

      Samuel C. Oainsburgh for petitioner.

      Richard H. Switzer for respondent.

      Raymond H. Kierr for Louisiana Trial Lawyers Association, and Samuel Langerman for American Trial Lawyers Association on the motions.
   Sup. Ct. La. Motions of Louisiana Trial Lawyers Association and American Trial Lawyers Association for leave to file briefs, as amici curiae, in support of the petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 18,
    Misc.
    Grant v. New York.

      Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 656.
    Gates v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Motion for leave to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 614.
    R. A. Holman & Co., Inc., et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission.

      Milton V. Freeman, Edgar H. Brenner, Daniel A. Rezneck and .Sidney P. Howell, Jr., for petitioners.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Philip A. Loomis, Jr., David Ferber and Edward B. Wagner for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Portas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 160,
    Misc.
    Eldridge v. Kansas.

      Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General of Kansas, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 53,
    Misc.
    Rogers v. Massachusetts.

      Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of Massachusetts, and Willie J. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 146,
    Misc.
    Holland v. Weakley, Reformatory Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 260,
    Misc.
    Williams v. United States.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 382,
    Misc.
    Garcia v. United States.

      Leon B.Polsky and PhylisSkloot Bamberger for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 281,
    Misc.
    India v. New York.

      Sam Polur for petitioner.

      Aaron E. Koota and William /. Siegel for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 398,
    Misc.
    Coyote v. United States.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Paul C. Summitt for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 439,
    Misc.
    Peterson v. Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 446,
    Misc.
    Kennedy v. United States.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 450,
    Misc.
    Day v. Tennessee.

      James H. Bateman and William C. Wilson for petitioner.

      George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Robert F. Hedgepath, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 470,
    Misc.
    Robinson v. Tennessee.

      James H. Epps III for petitioner.

      George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Thomas E. Fox and Paul E. Jennings, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 532,
    Misc.
    McIntyre v. United States.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 474,
    Misc.
    Adams v. Cameron, Hospital Superintendent.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 493,
    Misc.
    Black v. United States.

      Calvin L. Brown for petitioner.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 498,
    Misc.
    Smith v. United States.

      Marshall Patner for petitioner.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 500,
    Misc.
    Wright v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 515,
    Misc.
    Saunders v. California.

      J. Perry Langford for petitioner.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Philip C. Griffin, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 516,
    Misc.
    Henry v. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

      H. H. Gearinger for petitioner.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 535,
    Misc.
    Ruiz v. United States.

      George W. Jansen for petitioner.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Jerome M. Feit and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 541,
    Misc.
    Powers v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 542,
    Misc.
    Braun v. Nelson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 543,
    Misc.
    Penrice v. Oliver, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 550,
    Misc.
    Lewis v. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 551,
    Misc.
    White v. Lanson Chemical Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 552,
    Misc.
    Fair v. Dekle, Supervisor of Elections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 564,
    Misc.
    Hennessy v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 575,
    Misc.
    Dickerson v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 591,
    Misc.
    Peebles v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 592,
    Misc.
    Scott v. California Supreme Court et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 610,
    Misc.
    Benner v. Benner.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 613,
    Misc.
    Holland v. Pennsylvania.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 614,
    Misc.
    Jordan v. Wilson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 615,
    Misc.
    Jordan v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 616,
    Misc.
    Ortega v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 623,
    Misc.
    Johnson v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

      Henry E. Howell, Jr., for petitioner.

      Thomas R. McNamara for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 626,
    Misc.
    Cassese v. Peyton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 631,
    Misc.
    McNeal v. Oliver, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 632,
    Misc.
    King v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 636,
    Misc.
    Rucker v. Parker et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 639,
    Misc.
    Finley v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 643,
    Misc.
    Taylor v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 645,
    Misc.
    Weed v. United States.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 633,
    Misc.
    Sams v. United States.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 664,
    Misc.
    Weeks v. Texas.

      Clyde W. Woody and Marian S. Rosen for petitioner.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 662,
    Misc.
    DeWelles v. United States et al.

      Robert H. Wyshak and Lillian W. Wyshak for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Crombie J. D. Garrett and Benjamin M. Parker for the United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 123,
    Misc.
    Reese v. Louisiana.

      Sam J. D’Amico for petitioner.

      Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana, and Ralph L. Roy for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Fortas and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 124,
    Misc.
    White v. Florida.

      Earl Fair cloth, Attorney General of Florida, and Fred T. Gallagher, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Fortas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 141.
    No. 148.
    No. 491.
    Fowler et al. v. Benton, Sudduth v. California, Sayles v. Wiegand, President, Board of Directors of Metropolis Building Association, et al.,
   ante, p. 851;

ante, p. 850; and

ante, p. 45. Motions to dispense with printing petitions for rehearing granted. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 91.
    No. 115.
    No. 139.
    No. 176.
    No. 177.
    No. 207.
    No. 275.
    No. 284.
    No. 306.
    No. 395.
    No. 455.
    No. 83,
    No. 100,
    No. 167,
    No. 338,
    No. 485,
    No. 507,
    No. 509,
    No. 538,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Fort v. City of Miami, Heller v. Connecticut, South Shore Packing Corp. v. City of Vermilion, Price, dba Howard Price & Co. v. State Road Commission of West Virginia et al., Wetherall et al. v. State Road Commission of West Virginia et al., Jackson et al. v. Western Geothermal, Inc., et al., Willis v. O'Brien, Judge, Pinto, Prison Farm Superintendent v. Pierce, Associated Press v. Walker, Motorola, Inc. v. Armstrong, Executrix, Stief v. J. A. Sexauer Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al., Wyley v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, Walker v. National Maritime Union et al., Dedmon v. Oliver, Warden, et al., Starner v. Russell, Correctional Superintendent, Anderson v. California, Jackson v. Wilson, Warden, et al., Martinez v. California, Dento v. United States,
   ante, p. 918;

ante, p. 902;

ante, p. 847;

ante, p. 14;

ante, p. 14;

ante, p. 823;

ante, p. 848;

ante, p. 31;

ante, p. 28;

ante, p. 830;

ante, p. 897;

ante, p. 863;

ante, p. 864;

ante, p. 867;

ante, p. 889;

ante, p. 916;

ante, p. 917;

ante, p. 943; and

ante, p. 944. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 106.
    No. 122.
    No. 124.
    No. 138.
    No. 313.
    No. 320.
    No. 376.
    No. 257,
    No. 277,
    No. 301,
    No. 318,
    No. 325,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Ober et al. v. Nagy et al., Custer Channel Wing Corp. et al. v. United States, Estate of Berry et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Blane v. United States, Selinger v. Bigler, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service, et al., Serman et al. v. United States, Fisher v. United States, Burich v. United States, Gunzburger v. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bailey v. DeQuevedo, Grene v. United States, Pope v. Parker, Warden,
   ante, p. 900;

ante, p. 850;

ante, p. 834;

ante, p. 835;

ante, p. 904;

ante, p. 843;

ante, p. 845;

ante, p. 885;

ante, p. 885;

ante, p. 923;

ante, p. 908; and

ante, p. 886. Petitions for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


text:
    No. 381.
    Local Union No. 721, United Packinghouse, Food & Allied Workers, AFL-CIO v. Needham Packing Co., dba Sioux City Dressed Beef,

      Elliot Bredhoff, Michael H. Gottesman, George H. Cohen, Bernard Kleiman and Stephen I. Schlossberg on the motion.
   ante, p. 830. Motion of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al., for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, in support of rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 21,
    No. 52,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Evans et al. v. Louisiana, Littleton v. Texas,
   ante, p. 887; and

ante, p. 887. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 406.
    Mercer et al. v. Hemmings et al.,

      David B. Isbell for American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Inc., John T. Noonan for Howard Johnson Co., Marvin Schwartz for Equitable Securities Corp., Leo A. Larkin for W. R. Grace & Co., and Robert MacCrate for General Foods Corp.
   ante, p. 46. Motions of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Inc., Howard Johnson Co., Equitable Securities Corp., W. R. Grace & Co., and General Foods Corp., for leave to file briefs, as amici curiae, in support of petition for rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    December 11, 1967.
    No. 624,
    Misc.
    Stotts v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 769,
    Misc.
    Raburn v. Nash, Judge.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 796,
    Misc.
    Moore v. California et al.

      DeWitt F. Blase for petitioner.
   Super. Ct. Cal., County of Ventura. Petition for writ of cer-tiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 359,
    Misc.
    Sanchez v. California.

      Charles F. Prael on the motion.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion to defer consideration of petition for writ of cer-tiorari granted.


text:
    No. 29,
    Orig.
    Texas et al. v. Colorado.

      Waggoner Carr, Attorney General, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, T. B. Wright, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and J. Arthur Sandlin, Vince Taylor and Roger Tyler, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of Texas, and Boston E. Witt, Attorney General, F. Harlan Flint, Claud S. Mann and Paul L. Bloom, Special Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of New Mexico, on the motion. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, James D. Geissinger, Assistant Attorney General, and Raphael J. Moses, Glenn G. Saunders, John M. Dickson, Donald H. Hamburg and George A. Brown, Special Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant in opposition.
    Former Solicitor General Marshall and Solicitor General Gris-wold filed memoranda for the United States.
   Motion for leave to file bill of complaint granted and the State of Colorado allowed sixty days to answer.

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

[For earlier order herein, see 387 U. S. 939.]


text:
    No. 70.
    Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S. p. A. v. Lisi et al.

      Stuart M. Speiser on the motion.

      Austin P. Magner and George N. Tompkins, Jr., for petitioner in opposition to the motion.
   C. A. 2d Cir. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 926.) Motion of Arnold Holtzman for leave to file brief, as amicus curiae, granted.

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


text:
    No. 773,
    No. 779,
    No. 835,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Walton v. Nelson, Warden; Deuel v. Girard, Youth Camp Superintendent; and Steele v. Nelson, Warden, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 32,
    Orig.
    Missouri v. Nebraska.

      Norman H. Anderson, Attorney General of Missouri, and Brick P. Storts III and Howard L. McFadden, Assistant Attorneys General, on the motion.

      Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General of Nebraska, and Howard H. Moldenhauer and Joseph R. Moore, Special Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant in opposition.
   Motion for leave to file bill of complaint granted and the State of Nebraska allowed sixty days to answer.

It Is Ordered that Honorable Gilbert H. Jertberg, Senior Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit be, and he is hereby, appointed Special Master in this case with authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings, and with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The Master is directed to submit such reports as he may deem appropriate.

The Master shall be allowed his actual expenses. The allowances to him, the compensation paid to his technical, stenographic, and clerical assistants, the cost of printing his report, and all other proper expenses shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court hereafter may direct.

It Is Further Ordered that if the position of Special Master in this case becomes vacant during a recess of the Court, The Chief Justice shall have authority to make a new designation which shall have the same effect as if originally made by the Court herein.


text:
    No. 689,
    Misc.
    Jackovick v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   D. C. E. D. Wash. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 227.
    Federal Power Commission v. Pan American Petroleum Corp. et al.

      Cecil N. Cook and Neal Powers, Jr., for respondent Cockrell et al., Bruce R. Merrill and Thomas H. Burton for respondent Continental Oil Co., and Cecil E. Munn for respondent General American Oil Co. of Texas on the motion.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion for consecutive oral arguments denied. (See ante, p. 811, where consolidation ordered and certiorari granted in No. 60 et al.)

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


text:
    No. 876.
    Harrison v. United States.
    It is ordered that Alfred V. J. Prather, Esquire, of Washington, D. C., a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 969.) Motion of petitioner for appointment of counsel granted.


text:
    No. 386,
    Misc.
    Sims v. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

      H. H. Gearinger on the motion.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion to consolidate this case with Hopkins v. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, No. 276 (see ante, p. 811), denied.

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

[For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 804.]


text:
    No. 829,
    Misc.
    Ryan v. Florida.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 659,
    Misc.
    Hill v. Wert.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 637.
    Chan Kwan Chung v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

      William H. Dempsey, Jr., Esquire, a member of the Bar of this Court, is invited to appear and present oral argument, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.

      Abraham Lebenkoff for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Julia P. Cooper for.respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 695.
    Green et al. v. County School Board of New Kent County et al.

      Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, S. W. Tucker and Henry L. Marsh III for petitioners.

      Frederick T. Gray for respondents.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 566,
    Misc.
    Sabbath v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Case transferred to appellate docket.


text:
    No. 666.
    Triway Investment Co. et al. v. Oregon, by and through its State Highway Commission, et al.

      Donald C. Walker for petitioner Triway Investment Co., and petitioner Reuben G. Lenske, pro se.

   Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 205.
    Ross v. Virginia.

      Roland D. Ealey for petitioner.

      Reno S. Harp III for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 663.
    National Surety Corp. v. United States for the Use of Way Panama, S. A.

      Dayton G. Wiley for petitioner.

      Fred Much for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 667.
    International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union et al. v. National Labor Relations Board.

      Norman Leonard for petitioners.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 672.
    Chiodo et al. v. General Waterworks Corp.

      Calvin A. Behle, George W. Latimer, Keith E. Taylor and Adam M. Duncan for petitioners.

      Peter W. Billings and Peter Keher for respondent.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 674.
    Thomas et al. v. Consolidation Coal Co. (Pocahontas Fuel Co. Division) et al.

      D. Grove Moler for petitioners.

      Harry G. Camper, Jr., for Consolidation Coal Co., and Edward L. Carey, Harrison Combs and M. E. Boiarsky for International Union, United Mine Workers of America, et al., respondents.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 676.
    Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad Co. et al. v. Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County et al.

      John M. Curphey for petitioners.

      Charles H. Brady for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 677.
    Tighe v. Roecker et al.

      Bowman Stirling Tighe for petitioner.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 681.
    Fiduciary Counsel, Inc. v. Wirtz, Secretary of Labor.

      Carl L. Shipley for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Gris-wold, Assistant Attorney General Weisl, Morton Hollander, Jack H. Weiner, Charles Donahue and George T. Avery for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 684.
    J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.

      Whiteford S. Blakeney for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Arnold Ordmrn, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come for respondent National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 687.
    Schreffler v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America.

      Thomas H. Anderson for petitioner.

      James A. Dixon for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 692.
    Byrne v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. et al.

      Frank L. Paul for respondent First National Bank of Chicago et al., Frank A. Karaha, pro se, and for respondent Hendricks, and Thomas B. Gilmore for respondent MacKinnon.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 696.
    Alpha Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Houston et al.

      Presley E. Werlein, Jr., Charles A. Easterling and F. Joseph Donohue for petitioner.

      Homer T. Bouldin for respondents.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 1st Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 697.
    Turner et al., dba Atlanta’s Playboy Club v. HMH Publishing Co., Inc., et al.

      Henry M. Hatcher, Jr., for petitioners.

      Milton I. Shadur, Abner J. Mikva, William H. Klein and R. Howard Goldsmith for respondents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 123.
    Lynn v. New Jersey.

      Harry Steiner for petitioner.

      Thomas P. Ford, Jr., for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 649.
    Adler v. United States.

      Daniel H. Greenberg for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Ronald L. Gainer for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 682.
    Boedeker v. Abramson, Trustee in Bankruptcy, et al.

      Robert F. Ritchie for petitioner.

      Philip I. Palmer for Abramson, and Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Rogovim, and Crombie J. D. Garrett for the United States, respondents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 387,
    Misc.
    Cockrell et al. v. California.

      Burton Marks for petitioners.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Rose-Marie Gruenwald, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 690.
    Carabbia v. United States.

      John F. Ray, Jr., for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Paul C. Summitt for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 685.
    Ungar v. Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

      Morton Liftin for petitioner.

      John G. Bonomi for respondent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 693.
    DeCosta v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., et al.

      Eugene Gressman for petitioner.

      Eugene L. Girden, Knight Edwards and Roland R. Lagueux for respondents.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Fortas are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 181,
    Misc.
    Leonti v. New York.

      Irving Tenenbaum for petitioner.

      William Gahn for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 366,
    Misc.
    Orr v. New York.

      Isidore Dollinger and Daniel J. Sullivcm for respondent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 607,
    Misc.
    White v. Lane, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 511,
    Misc.
    Manigo v. New York City Housing Authority.

      Nancy E. LeBlanc for petitioner.

      Harry Levy and Harold Weintraub for respondent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    Nos. 414,
    Misc., and 422, Misc.
    Juvera v. United States.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Jerome M. Feit and Marshall Tamor Golding for the United States in both cases.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 559,
    No. 716,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Terlikowski v. United States; and Slawek v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Philip B. Mona-han for the United States in both cases.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 379 F. 2d 501.


text:
    No. 594,
    Misc.
    Brown v. Circuit Court of St. Louis County.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 600,
    Misc.
    Wuland v. Frey.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 630,
    Misc.
    Simpson v. United States.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 634,
    Misc.
    O’Malley v. United States.

      Robert H. Reiter for petitioner.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Jerome Feit and Robert G. May sack for the United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 651,
    Misc.
    Matlack v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 647,
    Misc.
    Cauefield et al. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York et al.

      J. D. DeBlieux for petitioners.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 648,
    Misc.
    Thompson v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 656,
    Misc.
    Henry v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 658,
    Misc.
    Hill v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 660,
    Misc.
    Feist v. California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 665,
    Misc.
    Sawyer v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 674,
    Misc.
    Modesto v. Nelson, Warden.

      Russell E. Parsons for petitioner.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Norman H. Sokolow, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 637,
    Misc.
    Baskin v. Baskin et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 667,
    Misc.
    Andrews v. Field, Mens Colony Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 675,
    Misc.
    Hill v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 679,
    Misc.
    Dumas v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 676,
    Misc.
    Banks v. United States.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 687,
    Misc.
    Falgout v. Trujillo, Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 251,
    Misc.
    Banks v. Florida.

      Albert Datz for petitioner.

      Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and Wallace E. Allbritton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 564.
    No. 168,
    No. 452,
    No. 577,
    Gearey v. United States, Elliott, Administrator v. Sierzenga et al., Gilday v. Massachusetts, Jones v. Reagan, Governor of California, et al.,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
   ante, p. 959;

ante, p. 910;

ante, p. 916; and

ante, p. 894. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 271,
    Misc.
    Smith v. Kansas,
   ante, p. 871. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    December 12, 1967.
    No. 774.
    United States v. Beckham.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Weisl, John C. Eldridge and Robert V. Zener for the United States.

      Paul R. Harmel for respondent.
   Ct. Cl. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    December 18, 1967.
    No. 21.
    Zschernig et al. v. Miller, Administrator, et al.

      Peter A. Schwabe, Jr., on the motion.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ore. Motion of appellants for leave to file supplemental memorandum after argument granted.

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

[For earlier order herein, see 386 U. S. 1030.]


text:
    No. 237.
    Biggers v. Tennessee.

      George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Thomas E. Fox, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. (Certiorari granted, 388 U. S. 909.) Motion of respondent for leave to file supplemental brief granted.

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


text:
    No. 618.
    Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.

      Solicitor General Griswold on the motion.

      Louis Nizer, Gerald Meyer and Lawrence S. Lesser for respondent in opposition.
   C. A. 2d Cir. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 969.) Motion of the United States, as amicus curiae, to postpone oral argument denied.

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


text:
    No. 405.
    Powell v. Texas.

      Peter Barton Hutt on the motion for American Civil Liberties Union et al.
   Appeal from County-Court at Law No. 1, Travis County. (Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 810.) Motions of American Civil Liberties Union et al. and Philadelphia Diagnostic & Relocation Services Corp. for leave to file briefs, as amici curiae, granted.


text:
    No. 305.
    Securities and Exchange Commission v. New England Electric System et al.

      George Spiegel and Worth Row-ley on the motions.

      John R. Quarles, Richard B. Dunn, Richard W. Southgate and John J. Glessner III for respondents in opposition.
   C. A. 1st Cir. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 816.) Motion of Municipal Electric Association of Massachusetts for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted. Its motion to present oral argument, as amicus curiae, denied.

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


text:
    No. 478.
    Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 et al. v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., et al.

      S. G. Lippman and Tim Bernstein on the motion.

      Robert Lewis for respondents in opposition.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 911.) Motion of Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted.


text:
    No. 155,
    Misc.
    In re Disbarment of Quimby.
   It is hereby ordered, in light of the order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, dated November 13, 1967, that Charles H. Quimby III file by January 17, 1968, a further response to the order to show cause heretofore entered by this Court on May 29, 1967 [see 387 U. S. 927].


text:
    No. 728,
    Misc.
    Oyler v. Pennsylvania.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 1038,
    Misc.
    In re Disbarment of O’Malley.
   It is ordered that William R. O’Malley of Wickliffe, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within forty days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 261,
    Misc.
    Homer v. Beto, Corrections Director, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 247.
    No. 319.
    Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington et al.; and Kautz et al. v. Department of Game of Washington et al.

      Arthur Knodel for petitioner in No. 247.

      John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, Joseph L. Coniff, Special Assistant Attorney General, and Mike Johnson and Ed Mackie, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents in both cases.
    Briefs amicus curiae, in support of the petitions in both cases, were filed by Allan G. Shepard, Attorney General of Idaho, and T. J. Jones III, Special Counsel, for Idaho Fish & Game Department, and Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.
    Briefs amicus curiae, in support of the petition in No. 247, were filed by Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General, for the State of Oregon, and Arthur Lazarus, Jr., for Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Motion to dispense with printing petition in No. 319 granted. Cer-tiorari granted. Cases are consolidated and a total of two hours is allotted for oral argument.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and these petitions.

Reported below: No. 247, 70 Wash. 2d 245, 422 P. 2d 754; No. 319, 70 Wash. 2d 275, 422 P. 2d 771. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 806.]


text:
    No. 658.
    Tyree v. New York Central Railroad Co.

      Marshall I. Nurenberg for petitioner.

      John F. Dolan for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 698.
    Farmers Co-operative Elevator Association Non-Stock of Big Springs, Nebraska v. Strand.

      William Craig, Paul D. Wilson and Jack E. Horsley for petitioner.

      James R. Stoner for respondent.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 706.
    Smith v. Tennessee.

      Bernard H. Cantor for petitioner.

      George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Thomas E. Fox, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 708.
    Shinall v. Mississippi.

      Robert L. Carter, Barbara A. Morris, Jack H. Young and Raymond A. Brown for petitioner.

      Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General of Mississippi, and Guy N. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 709.
    Plisco v. Union Railroad Co.

      James E. McLaughlin and John J. Hickton for petitioner.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 713.
    Breault et al. v. Feigenholtz, Executor, et al.

      John J. Yowell, G. Kent Yowell and Philip B. Kurland for petitioners.

      Hirsch E. Soble for respondent Feigenholtz.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 712.
    Malinou, Public Administrator v. Cairns et al.

      Martin Mali-nou, petitioner, pro se.

      Henry M. Swan for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. R. I. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 714.
    Jones Lumber Co. v. Del Norte County.

      Jonathan U. Newman for petitioner.

      Louis R. Baker for respondent.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 715.
    No. 718.
    Kahn v. United States; and Sachs et al. v. United States.

      Richard E. Gorman for petitioner in No. 715.

      Don H. Reuben, Lawrence Gunnels, Alan M. Dershowitz and William T. Kirby for petitioners in No. 718.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Julia P. Cooper for the United States in both cases.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 381 F. 2d 824.


text:
    No. 716.
    Jackson et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

      Richard P. John for petitioners.

      Solicitor General Gris-wold and Assistant Attorney General Rogovin for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 723.
    Mansfield v. United States.

      Julius Lucius Echeles and Max Reinstem for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin and Joseph M. Howard for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 730.
    Bacsko v. New Jersey.

      Frederick Klaessig for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. 548.
    Snohomish County v. Seattle Disposal Co. et al.

      John Wilson for petitioner.

      Orville H. Mills for respondents.

      Solicitor General Griswold filed a memorandum for the United States, by invitation of the Court, ante, p. 925.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom Mr. Justice White concurs,

dissenting.

The Supreme Court of Washington held in a 6-3 decision that the State lacks power to apply a local zoning ordinance for control of garbage dumps and sewage landfills to respondent Seattle Disposal Company, a non-Indian lessee of two parcels of land within the Tulalip Tribes Reservation.

One section of the Act relevant to our problem — now codified as 28 U. S. C. § 1360 — gave civil jurisdiction over Indians and Indian lands to California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin with the following proviso:

“Nothing in this section shall authorize the alienation, encumbrance, or taxation of any real or personal property . . . belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe . . . that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States; or shall authorize regulation of the use of such property in a manner inconsistent with any Federal treaty, agreement, or statute . . . .”

The federal question arises in the following manner. By Public Law 280, c. 505, § 7, 67 Stat. 590, Congress gave consent “to any other State not having jurisdiction with respect to criminal offenses or civil causes of action [involving Indians and Indian lands], or with respect to both, as provided for in this Act, to assume jurisdiction ... by affirmative legislative action . . . (Italics added.)

Pursuant to Public Law 280, the State of Washington undertook to assume jurisdiction over Indians and their lands upon their consent. In the state enactment, jurisdiction was limited by Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.060, which incorporated verbatim the restrictions quoted above that are found in 28 U. S. C. § 1360.

In the case before us the Washington Supreme Court held that the Tulalip Tribes’ lands in issue were either held in trust or subject to a restraint against alienation imposed by 25 U. S. C. §§ 403a and 403a-2, which limit the length of leases made by the Tulalip Tribes and require approval of the Secretary of the Interior of leasing practices. The majority then held that under both 28 U. S. C. § 1360 and the state statute incorporating language from § 1360, zoning regulations were “encumbrances” on Indian lands because they limit the use thereof. One Washington state court decision, our decision in Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U. S. 1, and opinions of the Department of Interior were relied on by the majority in formulating this definition of “encumbrance.”

The majority also held that since 25 U. S. C. §§ 403a, 403b, and 415 authorized the Tulalip Tribes to make leases, their non-Indian lessees were entitled to the benefit of the restriction on state jurisdiction. Otherwise, reasoned the majority, the State would be interfering with the Indians’ right to make leases, and the State could not accomplish indirectly — by subjecting respondent Disposal Company to zoning regulations — what it was prohibited from doing by acting directly on the Indians. For this proposition one South Dakota decision and our decision in United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U. S. 174, were relied on.

The dissent was of the view that a zoning regulation directed at protecting public health and welfare was not an “encumbrance” as that term is used in § 1360 and the state equivalent. In that view, Indian activities which directly injure the citizenry of the State at large, or reasonably appear to do so, should be subjected to state control. Otherwise, state programs to check stagnation of water supply and pollution of the air would be frustrated. The dissent thought that the term “encumbrance” in § 1360 should be construed in conjunction with 25 U. S. C. § 231, which provides, inter alia, that the Secretary of the Interior permit state agents to enter on Indian lands to enforce sanitation and quarantine regulations. Finally, said the dissent, the non-Indian lessee could not rely on any immunity from state regulations which the Indians themselves might enjoy. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342, where a non-Indian lessee of mineral rights on Indian lands was held not immune from state taxation of gross production, was cited.

A substantial federal question is presented. It is apparent from a reading of the opinion of the Washington Supreme Court that the State has assumed jurisdiction over Indians as extensive as permitted by Public Law 280. There is nothing to suggest' that when the State copied the limitation on state jurisdiction found in § 1360 into the state statute, the State intended to impose greater restrictions than § 1360 imposes. The questions presented, then, are whether zoning controls over burning or dumping of garbage constitute an “encumbrance” on Indian lands under § 1360 and whether a non-Indian lessee can enjoy any immunity from state zoning that the Indians enjoy.

Subjecting respondent lessee to state regulations on garbage and sewage disposal seems no more a burden or encumbrance on the Indians’ right to lease their lands than the state tax on oil production of the non-Indian lessee in Oklahoma Tax Comm’n was a burden or encumbrance on the rights of the Indians there involved to make oil leases. In Oklahoma Tax Comm’n we said: “These cases present no question concerning the immunity of the Indian lands themselves from state taxation. There is no possibility that ultimate liability for the taxes may fall upon the owner of the land.” 336 U. S., at 353. The same proposition, in a different context, may be true here, since all petitioner demands is that respondent Disposal Company obtain a refuse disposal use permit before commencing operations.

There may also be merit to the dissent’s view that the immunity of Indian lands to a state “encumbrance” cannot frustrate state programs to check air and water pollution. The States should, perhaps, be able to prevent sewage dumped on Indians’ lands from draining into streams which flow into water supplies outside Indian lands. The same is true of smoke from garbage burned on Indian lands that contributes to smog over nearby cities. State controls in this area may be permissible by virtue of 25 U. S. C. § 231, whether or not they are achieved under the label “zoning” rather than “sanitation regulations.”

The Solicitor General, in a memorandum expressing the views of the United States, asserts that the decision below was correct because it accorded with an administrative regulation of the Department of the Interior. This regulation provides that no local zoning ordinance shall be applicable to land leased from an Indian tribe where, as here, the land is held in trust by or is subjected to a restriction against alienation by the United States. The Supreme Court of Washington did not rely on this regulation, and whether it is valid or unduly restricts the state authority conferred by Public Law 280 and 25 U. S. C. § 231 is an important federal question this Court should decide. I would grant certiorari.

       These five States — and Alaska by later amendment — are the only States specifically given jurisdiction without the need for state legislation. Washington obtained jurisdiction by way of the “any other State” clause in § 7 of the Act, quoted in part in text below, which was not codified.

       The italicized language is a reference to the proviso in § 1360, quoted in this opinion.

       One of the arguments petitioner makes is that that parcel of Indian land not held in trust by the Government was not, as held below, subject to restraint against alienation. I have found little merit in this contention, since the Tulalip Tribes purchased the parcel in question after 1956, with the effect that 25 U. S. C. § 403a-2 is controlling and indirectly restricts the power to make leases.

       25 CFR §1.4 provides:
      “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, none of the laws, ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules or other regulations of any State or political subdivision thereof limiting, zoning or otherwise governing, regulating, or controlling the use or development of any real or personal property, including water rights, shall be applicable to any such property leased from or held or used under agreement with and belonging to any Indian or Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States.
      “(b) The Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative may in Specific cases or in specific geographic areas adopt or make applicable to Indian lands all or any part of such laws, ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules or other regulations referred to in paragraph (a) of this section as he shall determine to be in the best interest of the Indian owner or owners in achieving the highest and best use of such property. . .

       The court below did rely on a 1942 decision of the Department of the Interior, 58 I. D. 52, holding that a Minnesota county could not apply a nonresidential zoning ordinance to certain Indian lands. But this decision was rendered before Public Law 280 was enacted.


text:
    No. 725.
    Julian, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. Farmers Bank of Clinton, Missouri.

      Phineas Rosenberg for petitioner.

      Dick H. Woods for respondent.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 727.
    Ealey v. United States.

      Milton Lorenzo McGhee for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 719.
    Scherer v. Brennan et al.

      Julius L. Sherwin and Theodore R. Sherwin for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold for respondents.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 720.
    Henry v. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corp.

      B. R. Chastain for petitioner.

      William H. Keys for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 721.
    Dugas v. Nippon Yusen Kaisha.

      H. Alva Brumfield for petitioner.

      Arthur J. Mandell for American Trial Lawyers Association, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of American Trial Lawyers Association for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 461,
    Misc.
    Milone v. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

      Marshall Patner for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 722.
    Noyd v. McNamara, Secretary of Defense, et al.

      Marvin M. Karpatkin, Ernest Angelí, Melvin L. Wulf, Norman Dorsen and Rhoda H. Karpatkin for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold for respondents.

      Tolbert H. McCarroll for American Humanist Association, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.

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


text:
    No. 724.
    Mirra v. United States.

      Jerome Lewis and Abraham Glasser for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Gris-wold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion to dispense with printing opinion of the District Court in petition granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petition.


text:
    No. 728.
    Graney et ux. v. United States.

      William H. Deck for petitioners.

      Solicitor General Gris-wold, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin and Robert H. Solomon for the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 330,
    Misc.
    Harris v. Pitchess, Sheriff.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Andrea Sheridan Ordin, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 202,
    Misc.
    Currie v. New York.

      Isidore Dollinger and Daniel J. Sullivan for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 373,
    Misc.
    Allen v. Wilson, Warden.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Deraid E. Granherg and William D. Stein, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 523,
    Misc.
    Young v. Crocker, Chief Judge, U. S. District Court, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 530,
    Misc.
    Blakey v. United States.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Jerome M. Feit and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 558,
    Misc.
    Winhoven et al. v. Pitchess, Sheriff.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Bradley A. Stoutt, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 612,
    Misc.
    Green, aka Youngblood v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 673,
    Misc.
    Taylor v. Page, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 680,
    Misc.
    Alvidrez v. California Adult Authority.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 684,
    Misc.
    Nadolski v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 685,
    Misc.
    Patskanick et vir v. National Labor Relations Board et al.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come for respondent National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 688,
    Misc.
    Garza v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 693,
    Misc.
    Rose v. California.
   Super. Ct. Cal., County of Los Angeles. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 706,
    Misc.
    Butterfield v. Gazelle.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 707,
    Misc.
    Haggard v. Henderson, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 710,
    Misc.
    Wilkerson v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 712,
    Misc.
    Rowland v. North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 738,
    Misc.
    Kauffman v. Pennsylvania.

      Richard S. Lowe for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 751,
    Misc.
    Singleton v. United States.

      Harvey Erickson for peti-tionér.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. May sack for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


author: The Chief Justice,

text:
    No. 58,
    Misc.
    Vela v. Beto, Corrections Director.

      Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, George M. Cowden, First Assistant Attorney General, R. L. Lattimore, Howard M. Fender and Lonny F. Zwiener, Assistant Attorneys General, and A. J. Carubbi, Jr., for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,

dissenting.

This case is another further extension of Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, in which the error is more egregious. For the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Burgett v. Texas, ante, p. 116, 1 would grant the petition for writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. 152.
    No. 535.
    No. 402,
    No. 418,
    No. 572,
    No. 606,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    LaHitte et vir v. Acme Refrigeration Supplies, Inc., et al., Marchese et al. v. United States, Hackathorn v. Decker, Sheriff, Cohen v. Newsweek, Inc., Raymond v. Toffany, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of New York, Stiltner v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent,
   ante, p. 821 ;

ante, p. 930;

ante, p. 940;

ante, p. 878;

ante, p. 26; and

ante, p. 964. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 41.
    No. 401.
    Umans v. United States, Mora et al. v. McNamara, Secretary of Defense, et al.,
   ante, p. 80; and

ante, p. 934. Petitions for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


text:
    January 15, 1968.
    No. 33,
    Orig.
    Arkansas v. Tennessee.

      Joe Purcell, Attorney General of Arkansas, and Don Langston, Assistant Attorney General, on the motion.

      George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, C. Hayes Cooney, Assistant Attorney General, and Harry W. Laughlin, James L. Garthright, Jr., and J. Martin Regan, Special Counsel, for defendant.
   Motion for leave to file bill of complaint granted and the State of Tennessee allowed sixty days to answer.

It Is Ordered that the Honorable Gunnar H. Nordbye, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, be, and he is hereby, appointed Special Master in this case with authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings, and with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The Master is directed to submit such reports as he may deem appropriate.

The Master shall be allowed his actual expenses. The allowances to him, the compensation paid to his technical, stenographic, and clerical assistants, the cost of printing his report, and all other proper expenses shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court hereafter may direct.

It Is Further Ordered that if the position of Special Master in this case becomes vacant during a recess of the Court, The Chief Justice shall have authority to make a new designation which shall have the same effect as if originally made by the Court herein.


text:
    No. 60.
    No. 61.
    No. 62.
    No. 80.
    No. 97.
    Federal Power Commission v. Sunray DX Oil Co. et al.; United Gas Improvement Co. v. Sunray DX Oil Co. et al. ; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. et al. v. Federal Power Commission et al.; Federal Power Commission v. Standard Oil Co. of Texas, a Division of Chevron Oil Co., et al.; and United Gas Improvement Co. v. Sunray DX Oil Co.

      J. P. Hammond, Harold H. Young, Jr., Wm. J. Grove, Carroll L. Gilliam and Phillip R. Ehrenkranz on the motion.
   C. A. 10th Cir. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 811.) Motion of Pan American Petroleum Corp. for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted.

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


text:
    No. 70.
    Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S. p. A. v. Lisi et al.

      Edwin Long-cope for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Alfred C. Clapp for Republic of Italy, and Robert MacCrate for Canada, on the motions.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Italy, and Canada for leave to file briefs, as amici curiae, granted.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.

[For earlier orders herein, see ante, pp. 926, 1000.]


text:
    No. 73.
    In re Ruffalo.

      Thomas V. Koykka on the motion.
   C. A. 6th Cir. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 815.) Motion of Ohio State Bar Association and Mahoning County Bar Association for leave to argue orally granted.

Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 127.
    Reading Co. v. Brown, Trustee in Bankruptcy, et al.

      Solicitor General Griswold for the United States on the motion.
   C. A. 3d Cir. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 895.) Motion of the United States to remove case from summary calendar granted and a total of one and one-half hours allotted for oral argument.

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


text:
    No. 149.
    Dyke et al. v. Taylor Implement Manufacturing Co., Inc.

      Bernard Kleiman on the motion.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 815.) Motion of petitioners to remove case from summary calendar denied.


text:
    No. 154.
    Miller v. California.

      F. Lee Bailey on the motions.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 968.) Motions of petitioner for leave to proceed further herein m forma pauperis and to dispense with printing appendix granted.


text:
    No. 178.
    No. 179.
    National Labor Relations Board v. United Insurance Co. of America et al.; and Insurance Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board et al.

      Shayle P. Fox on the motion.
   C. A. 7th Cir. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 815.) Motion of American Retail Federation for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted.

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


text:
    No. 405.
    Powell v. Texas.

      Paul O’Dwyer on the motion.
   Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1, Travis County. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 810.) Motion of National Council on Alcoholism for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted.


text:
    No. 232.
    No. 233.
    United States v. O’Brien; and O’Brien v. United States.

      Marvin Karpatkin, Howard S. Whiteside and Melvin L. Wulf on the motion for respondent in No. 232 and for petitioner in No. 233.
   C. A. 1st Cir. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 814.) Motion to remove cases from summary calendar granted and a total of one and one-half hours allotted for oral argument.

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


text:
    No. 363.
    No. 428.
    United States et al. v. Southwestern Cable Co. et al.; and Midwest Television, Inc., et al. v. Southwestern Cable Co. et al.

      Michael Finkelstein on the motion for All-Channel Television Society.

      Arthur Schemer for Southwestern Cable Co., and Robert L. Heald for Mission Cable TV, Inc., et al. in opposition.

      Ernest W. Jennes, Charles A. Miller, Arthur H. Schroeder and John P. Bankson, Jr., on the motion for San Diego Telecasters, Inc.
   (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 911.) C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of All-Channel Television Society for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted. Motion of San Diego Telecasters, Inc., to substitute Western Telecasters, Inc., as a party petitioner in No. 428 granted.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.


text:
    No. 508.
    Levy, Administratrix v. Louisiana through the Charity Hospital of Louisiana at New Orleans Board of Administrators et al.

      Harry D. Krause, Jack Greenberg and Leroy D. Clark on the motion.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. La. (Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 925.) Motion of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, granted.


text:
    No. 465.
    Edwards v. Pacific Fruit Express Co.

      Clifton Hildebrand on the motion for Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America.
   C. A. 9th Cir. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 912.) Motion of Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America, et al., for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, granted.


text:
    No. 479,
    Misc.
    Pack v. Bunnell, State Hospital Superintendent.

      John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Paul J. Murphy and Stephen C. Way, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 840,
    No. 845,
    No. 862,
    No. 898,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Harris v. Pate, Warden; Knowles v. Lee, Commissioner, State Board of Corrections, et al.; Davis v. Florida; and Van Newkirk v. District Attorney, Richmond County, New York.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 698,
    No. 737,
    No. 745,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Marcelin v. New York; Austin v. Nelson, Warden, et al.; and McCray v. Arraj, Chief Judge, U. S. District Court.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 718.
    Sachs et al. v. United States,
   ante, p. 1015. The United States is requested to file, within thirty days, a response to petition for rehearing.

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


text:
    No. 478.
    Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 et al. v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., et al.

      J. Albert Woll, Laurence Gold and Thomas E. Harris on the motion for American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations.

      Marvin M. Karpatkin and Melvin L. Wulf on the motion for American Civil Liberties Union. Robert Lewis for respondents in opposition.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. (Certiorari granted, ante, p. 911.) Motions of American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations, and American Civil Liberties Union for leave to file briefs, as amici curiae, granted.


text:
    No. 660.
    Board of Education of Central School District No. 1 et al. v. Allen, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al.

      Marvin E. Pollock and Alan H. Levine for appellants.

      Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Ruth Kessler Toch, Solicitor General, and Jean M. Coon, Assistant Attorney General, for Allen, and Porter R. Chandler and Richard E. Nolan for Rock et al., appellees.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 742.
    Maryland et al. v. Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, et al.

      Francis B. Burch, Attorney General of Maryland, Thomas A. Garland, Loring E. Hawes and Alan M. Wilner, Assistant Attorneys General; Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, George Cowden and Hawthorne Phillips, Assistant Attorneys General, A. J. Carubbi, Jr., and Cecil Morgan for appellants.

      Solicitor General Griswold for appellees.
   Appeal from D. C. Md. Probable jurisdiction noted.

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


text:
    No. 797.
    No. 804.
    No. 808.
    No. 809.
    American Commercial Lines, Inc., et al. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. et al.; American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. et al.; American Waterways Operators, Inc. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. et al.; and Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. et al.

      T. Randolph Buck, Robert E. Webb, J. Raymond Clark and Harry C. Ames, Jr., for appellants in No. 797; Peter T. Beardsley, Bryce Rea, Jr., and Thomas M. Knebel for appellants in No. 804; A. Alvis Layne and Robert L. Wright for appellant in No. 808; and Robert W. Ginnane, Fritz R. Kahn and Leonard S. Goodman for appellant in No. 809.

      Stanfield Johnson, Elbert R. Leigh, James H. Mc-Glothlin, James A. Bistline, Thormund A. Miller, William M. Maloney, Harry J. Breithaupt, Donal L. Turkal, Carl Helmetag, Jr., Joseph E. Stopher and R. Lee Blackwell for appellee railroads.

      Solicitor General Griswold filed a memorandum for the United States in all four cases.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Ky. Probable jurisdiction noted. Cases are consolidated and two hours allotted for oral argument.

Reported below: 268 F. Supp. 71.


text:
    No. 813.
    Shapiro, Commissioner of Welfare of the State of Connecticut v. Thompson.

      Harold M. Mulvey, Attorney General of Connecticut, and Francis J. MacGregor, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, and Elizabeth Palmer, Deputy Attorney General, for the State of California, as amicus curiae, in support of appellant.
   Appeal from D. C. Conn. Motion of appellee for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 755.
    First Agricultural National Bank of Berkshire County v. State Tax Commission.

      John P. Weitzel for appellant.

      James Lawrence White on the motion.
   Appeal

from Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Motion of Colorado Bankers Association for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 174.
    Lee et al. v. Florida.

      Edward R. Kirkland for petitioners.

      Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and Wallace E. Allbritton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 517.
    St. Amant v. Thompson.

      Moses C. Scharff for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 760.
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Gordon et ux.

      Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Harris Weinstein, Gilbert E. Andrews and Martin T. Goldblum for petitioner.

      Harry R. Horrow for respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.

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


text:
    No. 740.
    Monroe et al. v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Jackson et al.

      Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Avon N. Williams, Jr., and Z. Alexander Looby for petitioners.

      Russell Rice, Sr., for respondents.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari granted and case set for oral argument immediately following No. 695, ante, p. 1003.


text:
    No. 733.
    Perma Life Mufflers, Inc., et al. v. International Parts Corp. et al.

      Raymond R. Dickey and Bernard Gordon for petitioners.

      John T. Chadwell, Glenn W. McGee and David Silbert for respondents.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 796.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO, et al.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come for petitioner.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.