text:
    No. 1570,
    Misc.
    Greenwell v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 1579,
    Misc.
    Iles v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1585,
    Misc.
    Harris v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1596,
    Misc.
    Draper v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1602,
    Misc.
    Baxter v. Olsen et al.
   C. A. 7th

Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1620,
    Misc.
    Colligan v. Rosetti, Property Clerk.
    Petitioner pro se. J. Lee Rankin for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1625,
    Misc.
    Deen v. New York.

      Nanette Dembits for petitioner. Frank S. Hogan, H. Richard Uviller and A lan F. Leibowits for respondent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1631,
    Misc.
    Collins v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1637,
    Misc.
    Gunston v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1422,
    Misc.
    Smith v. Reincke, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. John F. McGowan for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of Paul W. Orth for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1628,
    Misc.
    Hightower v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1675,
    Misc.
    Whalem v. Preston.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1597,
    Misc.
    Clark v. United States.

      Darwin Charles Brown for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion for leave to file a supplement to the petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1611,
    Misc.
    Riley v. Frye, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Petition for a writ of certiorari and for other relief denied.


text:
    No. 1046.
    No. 1096.
    No. 1119.
    No. 1134.
    No. 1321,
    Misc.
    Illinois ex rel. Musso, Madison County Treasurer v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. et al., Lance v. Plummer et al., Richmond v. Weiner, Executor, Dugan v. Nitze, Secretary of the Navy, et al., Ely v. New York,
   ante, p. 213;

ante, p. 929;

ante, p. 928;

ante, p. 928; and

ante, p. 956. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 557.
    No. 701,
    Misc.
    International Terminal Operating Co., Inc. v. N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats., Byrne v. Kysar et al.,
   382 U. S. 283, 1030; and

383 U. S. 913, ante, p. 914. Motions for leave to file second petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 14, 1966.
    No. 921.
    Howard v. Kentucky.

      John Y. Brown for petitioner. Robert Matthews, Attorney General of Kentucky, and Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Ct. App. Ky. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    June 20, 1966.
    No. 562.
    Time, Inc. v. Hill.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. Probable jurisdiction noted, 382 U. S. 936. Argued April 27, 1966.

This case is ordered restored to the docket for reargument at the next term of Court. Upon reargument, counsel are requested to discuss in their further briefs and oral arguments, in addition to the other issues, the following questions:

(1) Is the truthful presentation of a newsworthy item ever actionable under the New York statute as construed or on its face? If so, does appellant have standing to challenge that aspect of the statute?
(2) Should the per curiam opinion of the New York Court of Appeals be read as adopting the following portion of the concurring opinion in the Appellate Division?
“However, if it can be clearly demonstrated that the newsworthy item is presented, not for the purpose of disseminating news, but rather for the sole purpose of increasing circulation, then the rationale for exemption from section 51 no longer exists and the exemption should not apply. In such circumstances the privilege to use one’s name should not be granted even though a true account of the event be given — let alone when the account is sensationalized and fictionalized.”

Harold R. Medina, Jr., and Victor M. Earle III for appellant. Richard M. Nixon, Goldthwaite H. Dorr, Leonard Garment and Joseph V. Kline for appellee. Louis J. Lejkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Barry Mahoney and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Attorney General of New York, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.

(3) Does the concept of “fictionalization,” as used in the charge, the intermediate appellate decisions in this case, and in other New York cases, require intentional fabrication, or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of statements of fact, as a condition of liability? Would either negligent or non-negligent misstatements suffice? With respect to these issues, how should the instructions to the jury be construed?
(4) What are the First Amendment ramifications of the respective answers to the above questions?


text:
    No. 991.
    Wylan v. California.
   Appeal from App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of L. A. (Appeal dismissed, ante, p. 266.) Appellee is requested to file within thirty days a response to the petition for a rehearing.


text:
    No. 892,
    Misc.
    Mann v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   Petitioner pro se. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and James G. Mahomer, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.


text:
    No. 1218,
    Misc.
    McLain v. Florida.
   Petitioner pro se. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and Thomas E. Boyle, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.


text:
    No. 1017,
    Misc.
    Gabor v. Maricopa County Attorney et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 1129,
    Misc.
    Bosler v. Vogel, Chief Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals.
    Petitioner pro se. Norman H. Anderson, Attorney General of Missouri, and Howard L. McFadden, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 1273.
    In re Gault et al.

      Norman Dorsen and Melvin L. Wulf for appellants.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ariz. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 1125.
    Bond et al. v. Floyd et al.

      Leonard B. Boudin and Victor Rabinowitz for appellants. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, and William L. Harper, Alfred L. Evans, Jr., and Paul L. Hanes, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees. Melvin L. Wulf and Charles Morgan, Jr., for American Civil Liberties Union et al., and Hubert T. Delany for Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, as amici curiae, in support of appellants.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ga. Motion to advance denied. Probable jurisdiction noted.

Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and the question of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 1226.
    Keyishian et al. v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York et al.

      Richard Lipsitz for appellants. Probable jurisdiction noted. Louis J. Lef-koioitz, Attorney General of New York, and Ruth Kessler Toch, Acting Solicitor General, for Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York et al., and John C. Crary, Jr., for Board of Trustees of the State University of New York et al., appellees.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. N. Y.


text:
    No. 387,
    Misc.
    Miller v. Pate, Warden.

      Willard J. Lassers for petitioner. William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Richard A. Michael, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. Maurice Rosenfield and William R. Ming, Jr., for Radio Station WAIT (Chicago) et al., as amici curiae, in support of the petition.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Case transferred to appellate docket.


text:
    No. 918,
    Misc.
    Sims v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted limited to Questions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 which read as follows:

“1. Whether petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by a conviction and sentence to death obtained on the basis of a confession made under inherently coercive circumstances within the doctrine of Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U. S. 191.

Jack Greenberg and James M. Nabrit III for petitioner. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, and Carter A. Setliff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

“2. Whether petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the failure of the Georgia courts to afford a fair and reliable procedure for determining the voluntariness of his alleged coerced confession in disregard of the principle of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368.
“3. Whether petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel as declared in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, was violated by the use of his confession obtained during police interrogation in the absence of counsel, or whether petitioner’s right to counsel was effectively waived.
“4. Is a conviction constitutional where:
“(a) local practice pursuant to state statute requires racially segregated tax books and county jurors are selected from such books;
“(b) the number of Negroes chosen is only 5% of the jurors but they comprise about 20% of the taxpayers; and
“(c) a Negro criminal defendant’s offer to prove a practice of arbitrary and systematic Negro inclusion or exclusion based on jury lists of the prior ten years is disallowed?
“5. Where a Negro defendant sentenced to death in Georgia for the rape of a white woman offers to prove that nineteen times as many Negroes as whites have been executed for rape in Georgia in an effort to show that racial discrimination violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment produced such a result, may this offer of proof be disallowed?”

Case transferred to appellate docket.


text:
    No. 1565,
    Misc.
    Stovall v. Denno, Warden.

      Leon B. Polsky for petitioner. William Cahn for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Case transferred to appellate docket.


text:
    No. 1402.
    Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. et al. v. Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen et al.

      Paul A. Porter, Abe Krash, Dennis G. Lyons, Daniel A. Rezneck, Prime F. Osborn III and W. E. Grissett, Jr., for petitioners.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument during the week of October 10, 1966.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 1012,
    Misc.
    Entsminger v. Iowa.
    Petitioner pro se. Lawrence F. Scalise, Attorney General of Iowa, and Don R. Bennett, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. Val L. Schoenthal and Craig T. Sawyer for Iowa Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Case transferred to appellate docket and set for oral argument immediately following No. 1181.


text:
    No. 1270,
    Misc.
    Whitus et al. v. Georgia.

      Charles Morgan, Jr., and Melvin L. Wulf for petitioners. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, Carter A. Setliff, Assistant Attorney General, and Fred B. Hand, Solicitor General, for respondent.
   Ct. App. Ga. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Case transferred to appellate docket and set for oral argument immediately following No. 918, Misc.


text:
    No. 1271.
    Smith et al. v. United States.

      John N. Crudup for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1275.
    Melfa v. Davis, Commissioner of Personnel of Maryland, et al.

      Leonard J. Kerpelman for petitioner.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1277.
    Abrams et al. v. United States.

      Samuel Gottlieb, Louis A. Tepper and O. John Rogge for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1279.
    Colombo et al. v. Koota, District Attorney, Kings County, et al.

      Maurice Edelbaum for petitioners.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1280.
    Reynolds v. Commissioner of Commerce and Development.

      John Henry Brebbia and Delmar W. Holloman for petitioner.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1282.
    Harvey et al. v. Chemie Grunenthal, G.m.b.H.

      Robert Klonsky, Morris Hirschhom and Philip F. DiCostanzo for petitioners. Cecilia H. Goetz for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1284.
    Procario v. United States.

      Louis Bender for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Joseph M. Howard and John M. Brant for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1286.
    James H. Matthews & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.

      Billy S. Clark for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come for respondent.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1290.
    Great Western Broadcasting Corp., dba KXTV v. National Labor Relations Board.

      Winthrop A. Johns for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come for respondent. Duane B. Beeson for American Federation of Television & Radio Artists, San Francisco Local, et ah, in opposition to the petition. Douglas A. Anello for National Association of Broadcasters, and Arthur B. Hanson and Calvin H. Cobb, Jr., for American Newspaper Publishers Association, as amici curiae, in support of the petition.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1304.
    Komar v. New York.

      Borris M. Komar, petitioner, pro se. J. Lee Rankin and Seymour B. Quel for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1338.
    Automatic Electric Co. v. Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., et al.

      Arthur A. Olson, Theodore W. Anderson, Jr., and Victor Myer for petitioner. Walter J. Blenko and Walter J. Blenko, Jr., for respondents.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1307.
    Turpin v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.

      Walter A. Raymond for petitioner. Robert B. Langwoorthy for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88.
    In re Mackay.

      Joseph A. Ball and Edgar Paul Boyko for petitioner. George Cochran Doub for Supreme Court of Alaska.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Motion for leave to file a supplement to the petition for a writ of certiorari granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 443.
    Anderson et al. v. City of Chester et al.

      Anthony G. Amsterdam for petitioners. Paul R. Sand and Vram Nedurian, Jr., for respondents.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 711.
    United States v. Kalishman, Trustee in Bankruptcy.

      Solicitor General Marshall, Acting Assistant Attorney General Roberts and I. Henry Kutz for the United States. Harry S. Gleick for respondent.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Harlan would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment for the reasons stated in his opinion in Nicholas v. United States, ante, p. 678.


text:
    No. 776.
    Schiffer v. United States.

      Harvey M. Silets for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Theodore George Gilinsky for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1232.
    Cavell, Correctional Superintendent v. Whiting.

      Frank P. Lawley, Jr., Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, for petitioner.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1259.
    McKee v. New York Central Railroad Co.

      Marshall I. Nurenberg for petitioner. J. F. Dolan and T. R. Skulina for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Mr. Justice Black,

text:
    No. 1274.
    Beaufort Concrete Co. v. Atlantic States Construction Co.

      J. P. Harrelson for petitioner. Irvine F. Bel-ser, Jr., for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black,

dissenting.

I would grant certiorari in this case. This is another in a growing number of cases in which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been used to prevent the fair and just determination of a lawsuit on the merits. See, e. g., Lord v. Helmandollar, 121 U. S. App. D. C. 168, 348 F. 2d 780, cert. denied, 383 U. S. 928, Black, J., dissenting; Riess v. Murchison, cert. denied, 383 U. S. 946, Black, J., dissenting; Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U. S. 626, 636, Black, J., joined by The Chief Justice, dissenting. In this case I think the summary judgment entered against petitioner by the District Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals should be reversed and the case remanded to the District Court so that petitioner can have its day in court. The facts in summary are these. Petitioner supplied respondent with concrete to build some docks and warehouses near Savannah, Georgia. When respondent did not pay for all the concrete supplied, petitioner brought this suit to recover the balance, about $90,000. Respondent moved for summary judgment supporting its motion with several affidavits stating that a large portion of petitioner’s concrete was defective. On the day set for hearing petitioner filed three affidavits with the court which asserted that the concrete furnished was not defective and that, if it was, it became so because respondent’s agents had ordered it to be watered down. The District Court, however, refused to consider petitioner’s affidavits on the ground that they had not been served “prior to the day of hearing” as provided by Rule 56 (c) of the Federal Rules, and on the basis of the pleadings and respondent’s affidavits alone, the court entered summary judgment for respondent. The Court of Appeals affirmed stating that under the Federal Rules the trial court had broad discretionary power either to accept or reject petitioner’s untimely affidavits but that the court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the affidavits. The Court of Appeals went on to state that “Without the excluded affidavits, little is left to the plaintiff’s case — nothing, in fact, but the bare allegation in the complaint that [plaintiff] furnished adequate concrete for which it was not fully paid.” Thus for the delay of a few hours — less than one day — in serving affidavits on respondent’s counsel, petitioner was deprived of all opportunity to have the court consider its affidavit evidence, which if true, would have entitled it to collect the $90,000 balance for the concrete supplied.

I find it entirely at odds with a fair system of trying lawsuits to throw out a litigant’s case because his lawyer for negligence or some other reason fails by less than 24 hours to satisfy one of many procedural time limits. From the beginning to the end of a lawsuit a lawyer must meet a host of time limits for filing papers. Surely a judge should not have discretion to enter final judgment at will every time a slight lapse occurs which may delay for half a day or so the service of one of a multitude of papers that must be served during the trial and appeal of a lawsuit.

The summary judgment entered below indicates, in my opinion, a failure to appreciate that “The basic purpose of the Federal Rules is to administer justice through fair trials, not through summary dismissals as necessary as they may be on occasion.” Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 383 U. S. 363, 373. If the Federal Rules, as the Court of Appeals holds, repose in the district courts discretion to deprive parties of a full trial on their claims in circumstances like these, then it indicates to me that these rules exalt strict obedience to formality and “paper work” high above the fair and just trial of lawsuits. Nevertheless, the Federal Rules have been administered this way time and again. As I pointed out in my dissent to the new Federal Rules recently adopted:

“Cases coming before the federal courts over the years now filling nearly 40 volumes of Federal Rules Decisions show an accumulation of grievances by lawyers and litigants about the way many trial judges exercise their almost unlimited discretionary powers to use pretrial procedures to dismiss cases without trials. In fact, many of these cases indicate a belief of many judges and legal commentators that the cause of justice is best served in the long run not by trials on the merits but by summary dismissals based on out-of-court affidavits, pretrial depositions, and other pretrial techniques.” 383 U. S., at 1034.

The filing of court papers on time is, of course, important in our court system. But lawsuits are not conducted to reward the litigant whose lawyer is most diligent or to punish the litigant whose lawyer is careless. Procedural paper requirements should never stand as a series of dangerous hazards to the achievement of justice through a fair trial on the merits.


text:
    No. 1291.
    Taub v. Hale, aka Randolph Hale-Alcazar Theatre, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion to defer consideration of the petition for a writ of certio-rari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 569,
    Misc.
    Bloeth v. New York.
    Petitioner pro se. Charles T. Matthews for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 779,
    Misc.
    DiBlasi v. McMann, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Iris Steel, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 998,
    Misc.
    Corrie v. Florida.
    Petitioner pro se. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and James G. Mahorner, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1047,
    Misc.
    Davis v. Maroney, Correctional Superintendent.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1060,
    Misc.
    Cowling v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and C. Anthony Collins, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1622,
    Misc.
    Mitchell v. California.

      Evander Cade Smith for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1063,
    Misc.
    Darst v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
    Petitioner pro se. John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, Stephen C. Way and Paul J. Murphy, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1096,
    Misc.
    Stoner v. Oliver, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1098,
    Misc.
    Orlando v. Follette, Warden.

      Myron L. Shapiro and Richard J. Burke for petitioner. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Iris A. Steel, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1269,
    Misc.
    Waldron v. Illinois.
    Petitioner pro se. William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Richard A. Michael and Philip J. Rock, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1293,
    Misc.
    Hernandez v. United States.

      Herbert B. Schlosberg for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Anthony P. Nugent, Jr., for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1609,
    Misc.
    Narten v. Arizona.

      William Tinney and W. Edward Morgan for petitioner. Darrell F. Smith, Attorney General of Arizona, William E. Eubank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Gary K. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1573,
    Misc.
    Frank v. New York.

      Joseph I. Stone for petitioner. Frank S. Hogan, H. Richard Uviller and Michael R. Stack for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1672,
    Misc.
    Whiting v. Cavell, Correctional Superintendent.
    Petitioner pro se. Frank P. Lawley, Jr., Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1074,
    Misc.
    Mathis v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
    Petitioner pro se. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and T. T. Turnbull, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1194,
    Misc.
    Wells v. California.

      Charles R. Garry, Aubrey Grossman and Leo A. Branton, Jr., for petitioner. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, Gordon Ringer and Jack K. Weber for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 1556,
    Misc.
    Forman et al. v. City of Montgomery.

      William M. Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy, Martin M. Berger, John E. Thorne, Joseph Levin and Charles S. Conley for petitioners. Matthis W. Piel and Walter J. Knabe for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 417.
    California v. Curry et al.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Gordon Ringer and Jack K. Weber, Deputy Attorneys General, for petitioner.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist.


text:
    No. 705.
    California v. Williams.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Edward P. O’Brien and Michael R. Marrón, Deputy Attorneys General, for petitioner.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist.


text:
    No. 880.
    California v. Polk et al.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, and Edsel W. Haws, Deputy Attorney General, for petitioner. Stephen W. Shaughnessy for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 1035.
    California v. Flores.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. Collins, Deputy Attorney General, for petitioner.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Motion to dispense with printing respondent’s brief granted.


text:
    No. 1142.
    California v. Furnish.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Gordon Ringer, Deputy Attorney General, for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 965.
    Kohatsu v. United States.

      Laughlin E. Waters for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Acting Assistant Attorney General Roberts, Joseph M. Howard and John P. Burke for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir.


text:
    No. 1261.
    Sullins v. California.

      Charles Orlando Pratt and Sherman L. Cohn for petitioner. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and William L. Zessar, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent. Kirkpatrick W. Dilling for National Health Federation, and John Alvin Croghan for American Natural Hygiene Society, Inc., as amici curiae, in support of the petition.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist.


text:
    No. 1230,
    Misc.
    Kitchell v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Anthony P. Nugent, Jr., for the United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir.


text:
    No. 1004.
    Russo v. New Jersey et al.

      Raymond A. Brown and Irving I. Vogelman for petitioner. Brendan T. Byrne for respondents.
   C. A. 3d Cir.


text:
    No. 1146.
    Bolden v. United States.

      Edward J. Calihan, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Julia P. Cooper for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir.


text:
    No. 303,
    Misc.
    Bean v. Nevada.

      Leslie M. Fry for petitioner. Harvey Dickerson, Attorney General of Nevada, and William J. Raggio for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Nev.


text:
    No. 459,
    Misc.
    Childress v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir.


text:
    No. 970,
    Misc.
    Cephus v. United States.

      Mark A. Weiss and James V. Siena for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Mervyn Hamburg for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir.


text:
    No. 1117,
    Misc.
    Rasheed et al. v. Louisiana.

      Robert F. Collins and Nils R. Douglas for petitioners. Jim, Garrison for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. La.


text:
    No. 1122,
    Misc.
    Bennett v. Texas.

      Lewis L. Scott for petitioner. Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, T. B. Wright, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and Howard M. Fender and Alio B. Crow, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.


text:
    No. 1188,
    Misc.
    McClung v. Washington.
    Petitioner pro se. James E. Kennedy for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Wash.


text:
    No. 1203,
    Misc.
    Drummond v. United States.

      Orison S. Marden and Leon B. Polsky for petitioner. Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Kevin T. Maroney and Robert L. Keuch for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir.


text:
    No. 1436,
    Misc.
    Lopez v. United States.

      Anthony F. Marra for petitioner. Acting Solicitor General Spritzer for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir.


text:
    No. 1549,
    Misc.
    Logner v. North Carolina.

      Wade H. Penny, Jr.., for petitioner. Thomas Wade Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. N. C.


text:
    No. 4,
    Misc.
    Hayden v. Indiana.

      Richard M. Orr for petitioner. John J. Dillon, Attorney General of Indiana, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ind.


text:
    No. 162,
    Misc.
    Bennings v. United States.

      George F. Bason, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor

      General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Ronald L. Gainer for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion to strike brief of the United States denied.


text:
    No. 97,
    Misc.
    Fanelli v. New York.

      Thomas B. Moorhead and Leon B. Polsky for petitioner. David Diamond for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y.


text:
    No. 175,
    Misc.
    Miller v. Texas.

      John Peace for petitioner. James E. Barlow and Preston H. Dial, Jr., for respondent.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.


text:
    No. 339,
    Misc.
    Chevallier v. Texas.

      William E. Gray and Maurice M. Davis for petitioner.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.


text:
    No. 341,
    Misc.
    Grant v. Florida.
    Petitioner pro se. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and John S. Burton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Fla.


text:
    No. 499,
    Misc.
    Beverly v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Edward P. O’Brien and John F. Kraetzer, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist.


text:
    No. 621,
    Misc.
    Britten v. Georgia.

      Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, and Carter A. Setliff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Petitioner pro se.


text:
    No. 628,
    Misc.
    Simpson v. Louisiana.

      G. Wray Gill, Sr., for petitioner. Jim Garrison for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. La.


text:
    No. 719,
    Misc.
    Baker v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept.


text:
    No. 785,
    Misc.
    Allen v. Florida.

      James M. Russ for petitioner. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and T. T. Turnbull, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Fla.


text:
    No. 842,
    Misc.
    Sipult v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Jack K. Weber, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist.


text:
    No. 878,
    Misc.
    Mendez v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir.


text:
    No. 936,
    Misc.
    Jacobson v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Gordon Ringer, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 980,
    Misc.
    Baker v. Florida.
    Petitioner pro se. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and Thomas E. Boyle, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Fla.


text:
    No. 1153,
    Misc.
    Chatterton v. Georgia.

      David L. Lomenick for petitioner. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, Alfred L. Evans, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Earl B. Self, Solicitor General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ga.


text:
    No. 1186,
    Misc.
    Lombardi v. New York.
    Petitioner pro se. Alan F. Leibowitz for respondent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept.


text:
    No. 1336,
    Misc.
    Clemons v. Texas.

      Lewis L. Scott for petitioner. Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, T. B. Wright, Executive Assistant Attorney General, Charles B. Swanner and Howard M. Fender, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.


text:
    No. 1328,
    Misc.
    French v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. 111.


text:
    No. 1369,
    Misc.
    Gregory v. New York.
    Petitioner pro se. Benj. J. Jacobson for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y.


text:
    No. 1438,
    Misc.
    Novak v. Illinois.

      Sam Adams for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. 111.


text:
    No. 1616,
    Misc.
    Brown v. Arkansas.
    Petitioner pro se. Bruce Bennett, Attorney General of Arkansas, and Jack L. Lessenberry for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ark.


text:
    No. 53,
    Misc.
    Hanshaw v. Arizona et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Darrell F. Smith, Attorney General of Arizona, William E. Eubank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Gary K. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz.


text:
    No. 172,
    Misc.
    Still v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Edward P. O’Brien and Robert R. Granucci, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 194,
    Misc.
    Schlette v. California et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, and Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Attorney General, for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 201,
    No. 226,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Lopez v. California; and In re Winhoven.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Reported below: 62 Cal. 2d 368, 398 P. 2d 380.


text:
    No. 258,
    Misc.
    Childress v. Beto, Corrections Director.

      William E. Gray for petitioner. Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas,
      Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, T. B. Wright, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and Howard M. Fender and Alio B. Crow, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Ct. Grim. App. Tex.


text:
    No. 263,
    Misc.
    Abdelkader v. California et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Robert R. Granucci and Jennifer L. Bain, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 266,
    Misc.
    Bickley et al. v. Oliver, Warden, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 338,
    Misc.
    Peek v. United States et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Door, and David Norman for the United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir.


text:
    No. 354,
    Misc.
    Edwards v. Holman, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Richmond M. Flowers, Attorney General of Alabama, and John C. Tyson III, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir.


text:
    No. 425,
    Misc.
    James v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
    Petitioner pro se. Earl Fair-cloth, Attorney General of Florida, and William D. Roth, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Fla.


text:
    No. 579,
    Misc.
    Seno v. Macieiski, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Richard A. Michael, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir.


text:
    No. 615,
    Misc.
    Williams v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 598,
    Misc.
    Paulsen v. Maroney, Correctional Superintendent.
    Petitioner pro se. Robert W. Duggan for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir.


text:
    No. 581,
    Misc.
    Goodchild v. Burke, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Bronson C. La Follette, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and William A. Platz
      and Warren R. Resh, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Wis.


text:
    No. 624,
    Misc.
    Anthony v. Yeager, Prison Keeper.
   C. A. 3d Cir.


text:
    No. 630,
    Misc.
    Williams v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and James H. Kline, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 643,
    Misc.
    Miller v. New Mexico.
    Petitioner pro se. Boston E. Witt, Attorney General of New Mexico, and Myles E. Flint, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. N. M.


text:
    No. 645,
    Misc.
    DeFlumer v. New York.

      L. Robert Leisner for petitioner. John T. Garry II for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y.


text:
    No. 690,
    Misc.
    Walden v. Pate, Warden.

      Alton C. Sharpe for petitioner. William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Richard A. Michael and Philip B. Robinson, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir.


text:
    No. 722,
    Misc.
    Hudson v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Robert R. Granucci and John T. Murphy, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 723,
    Misc.
    Medrano v. Wilson, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 745,
    Misc.
    Olden v. Wilson, Warden, et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Robert R. Granucci and John F. Kraetzer, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 757,
    Misc.
    Riley v. California et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Edioard P. O’Brien, Deputy Attorney General, for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 935,
    Misc.
    Dickey v. Texas et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, and J. Milton Richardson and Howard M. Fender, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.


text:
    No. 942,
    Misc.
    Ruark v. Colorado.
    Petitioner pro se. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Colo.


text:
    No. 1177,
    Misc.
    Mitchell v. Stephens, Penitentiary Superintendent.

      John P. Size-more and Sidney S. McMath for petitioner. Bruce Bennett, Attorney General of Arkansas, Fletcher Jackson, Assistant Attorney General, and Jack L. Lessenberry for respondent.
   C. A. 8th Cir.


text:
    No. 1184,
    Misc.
    Craig v. Maroney, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir.


text:
    No. 1229,
    Misc.
    O’Connor v. Burke, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Bronson C. La Follette, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and William A. Platz and Harold H. Persons, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Wis.


text:
    No. 1409,
    Misc.
    Martinez v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 1447,
    Misc.
    Warnock v. Oliver, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 1485,
    Misc.
    Rosebrough v. California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir.


text:
    No. 1342,
    Misc.
    Delespine v. Texas.

      M. Gabriel Nahas, Jr., for petitioner. Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, T. B. Wright, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and /. Milton Richardson and Howard M. Fender, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.


text:
    No. 1507,
    Misc.
    Elliott v. Gladden, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ore.


text:
    No. 1241,
    Misc.
    Richardson v. New York.

      Samuel Gottlieb for petitioner. Aaron Nussbaum for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y.


text:
    No. 1288,
    Misc.
    McCoy v. Florida.
    Petitioner pro se. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and William D. Roth, Assistant Attorney General.
   Sup. Ct. Fla.


text:
    No. 1410,
    Misc.
    Strother v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Theodore George Gilinsky for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir.


text:
    No. 1595,
    Misc.
    Pece v. Cox, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir.


text:
    No. 1601,
    Misc.
    Deal v. California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir.


text:
    No. 1623,
    Misc.
    Wade v. Yeager, Warden.
   C. A. 3d Cir.


text:
    No. 1636,
    Misc.
    Gardner v. California.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist.


text:
    No. 466,
    Misc.
    Hamilton et al. v. North Carolina.

      Arthur Vann for petitioners.
   Sup. Ct. N. C.


text:
    No. 544,
    Misc.
    Smith v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept.


text:
    No. 577,
    Misc.
    Laine v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 68,
    Misc.
    Turner v. Texas.

      Philip L. Reardon for petitioner. Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, T. B. Wright, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and Milton Richardson and Howard M. Fender, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.


text:
    No. 158,
    Misc.
    Summerville v. Maryland.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General of Maryland, and Franklin Goldstein, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Ct. App. Md.


text:
    No. 197,
    Misc.
    Jones v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md.


text:
    No. 222,
    Misc.
    Hodgson v. New Jersey.

      Mark F. Hughes, Jr., for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. N. J.


text:
    No. 288,
    Misc.
    Lewis v. Illinois.

      Richard L. Pollay for petitioner. William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Richard A. Michael, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. 111.


text:
    No. 400,
    Misc.
    Richardson v. Illinois.

      Sydney E. Foster for petitioner. Daniel P. Ward and Elmer C. Kissane for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. 111.


text:
    No. 319,
    Misc.
    Moran v. Tennessee.
    Petitioner pro se. George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Thomas E. Fox, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn.


text:
    No. 378,
    Misc.
    Daley v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J.


text:
    No. 458,
    Misc.
    Tracy v. Massachusetts.
    Petitioner pro se. James F. Sullivan for respondent.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass.


text:
    No. 507,
    Misc.
    McGregor v. New York.
    Petitioner pro se. Mal-vina H. Guggenheim for respondent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept.


text:
    No. 547,
    Misc.
    Sherrick v. Arizona.
    Petitioner pro se. Darrell F. Smith, Attorney General of Arizona, and Philip M. Haggerty, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz.


text:
    No. 557,
    Misc.
    Piscitello v. New York.
    Petitioner pro se. Alan F. Leibowitz for respondent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept.


text:
    No. 564,
    Misc.
    Williams v. United States.

      Robert L. Montague III for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir.


text:
    No. 584,
    Misc.
    Brown v. New York.
    Petitioner pro se. Mal-vina H. Guggenheim for respondent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept.


text:
    No. 590,
    No. 631,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Ordog v. New Jersey; and Rush v. New Jersey.
    Petitioners pro se. Norman Heine for respondent in both cases.
   Sup. Ct. N. J.

Reported below: 45 N. J. 347, 212 A. 2d 370.


text:
    No. 675,
    Misc.
    Ward v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. 111.


text:
    No. 619,
    Misc.
    Morris v. West Virginia.

      George A. Daugherty and Mose E. Boiar-

      sky for petitioner. C. Donald Robertson, Attorney General of West Virginia, George H. Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles M. Walker for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va.


text:
    No. 648,
    Misc.
    Whiteside v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Mervyn Hamburg for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir.


text:
    No. 792,
    Misc.
    Golson et al. v. Illinois.

      James E. Knox, Jr., for petitioners. William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Richard A. Michael, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. 111.


text:
    No. 937,
    Misc.
    White v. Montana.
    Petitioner pro se. Forrest H. Anderson, Attorney General of Montana, and Charles M. Joslyn, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Mont.


text:
    No. 961,
    Misc.
    Montgomery v. Florida.

      Tobias Simon for petitioner. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and James G. Mahomer, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Fla.


text:
    No. 1027,
    Misc.
    Cone v. United States.

      Robert Kasanof for petitioner. Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Theodore George Gilinsky for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir.


text:
    No. 1101,
    Misc.
    Smith v. Ohio.

      Dan D. Weiner for petitioner. Lee C. Falke for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio.


text:
    No. 1138,
    Misc.
    Gillespie v. Virginia.

      H. H. Tiffany and W. Charles Poland for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va.


text:
    No. 1067,
    Misc.
    Connolly v. Illinois.
    Petitioner pro se. William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Richard A. Michael, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. 111.


text:
    No. 1114,
    Misc.
    Gorman v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Theodore G. Gilinsky for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir.


text:
    No. 1151,
    Misc.
    Bell v. Colorado.

      Rollie R. Rogers for petitioner. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, and James W. Creamer, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Colo.


text:
    No. 1166,
    Misc.
    Smith v. Texas.

      Orville A. Harlan for petitioner. Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, T. B. Wright, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and Gilbert J. Pena and Howard M. Fender, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.


text:
    No. 1167,
    Misc.
    Robinson v. United States.

      Anthony F. Marra for petitioner. Acting Solicitor General Spritzer for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir.


text:
    No. 1204,
    Misc.
    Lee v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y.


text:
    No. 1281,
    Misc.
    Gersh v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y.


text:
    No. 1310,
    Misc.
    Mitchell et al. v. North Carolina.

      Samuel S. Mitchell and Romallus O. Murphy for petitioners. Thomas Wade Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Theodore C. Brown, Jr., for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. N. C.


text:
    No. 1370,
    Misc.
    Johnston v. Texas.

      Herman Fitts for petitioner. Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, T. B. Wright, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and Howard M. Fender, Larry Craddock and Gilbert J. Pena, Assi^nt Attorneys General, for respondent. Melvin L. Wulf and Sam Houston Clinton, Jr., for American Civil Liberties Union et al., as amici curiae, in support of the petition.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.


text:
    No. 1322,
    Misc.
    Neuenfeldt v. Wisconsin.

      Irving D. Gaines for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Wis.


text:
    No. 1333,
    Misc.
    Opela v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir.


text:
    No. 1373,
    Misc.
    Morgan v. United States.

      Paul C. Duncan, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir.


text:
    No. 1378,
    Misc.
    Bird v. Arizona.

      John J. Flynn for petitioner. Darrell F. Smith, Attorney-General of Arizona, and Gary K. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz.


text:
    No. 1500,
    Misc.
    Freeman v. Kansas.
    Petitioner pro se. Robert D. Hecht for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Kan.


text:
    No. 1548,
    Misc.
    Atherton v. Oregon.
    Petitioner pro se. George Van Hoomissen and George M. Joseph for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ore.


text:
    No. 595,
    Misc.
    Nelson v. California.

      J. Perry Langford for petitioner. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and David W. Halpin and George J. Roth, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., ,41th„App. Dist.


text:
    No. 538,
    Misc.
    Saldana v. California.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist.


text:
    No. 678,
    Misc.
    Ross v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, and Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 850,
    Misc.
    Bazaure v. California.

      Solie A. Abrams for petitioner. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, Edsel W. Haws, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist.


text:
    No. 861,
    Misc.
    Molina v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Edward P. O’Brien and Robert R. Granucci, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 1002,
    Misc.
    King et al. v. California.
    Petitioners pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and David S. Sperber, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 1053,
    Misc.
    DuBont v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. 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.


text:
    No. 1091,
    Misc.
    Nye v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Gordon Ringer, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 1160,
    Misc.
    Rodriguez v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, John L. Giordano, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 1206,
    Misc.
    Wright v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 1285,
    Misc.
    Garrow v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 1415,
    Misc.
    Pena v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.


text:
    No. 1106.
    No. 1154.
    No. 1161.
    No. 837,
    No. 1135,
    No. 1276,
    No. 1352,
    No. 1384,
    No. 1451,
    No. 1521,
    No. 1522,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Dempster Brothers et al. v. Buffalo Metal Container Corp. et al., Powell v. National Savings & Trust Co., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Commissioner of Patents, Pope v. Daggett et al., Daegele v. Crouse, Warden, Stone v. United States, Haspel v. State Board of Education et al., Powers v. Texas, Fields v. California, Wion v. Willingham, Warden, Levy v. United States,
   ante, p. 940;

ante, p. 938;

ante, p. 941;

ante, p. 33;

ante, p. 954;

ante, p. 956;

ante, p. 211;

ante, p. 964;

ante, p. 946;

ante, p. 958; and

ante, p. 979. Petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 467,
    October Term, 1962.
    Alvado et al. v. General Motors Corp.,
   371 U. S. 925, 965, 375 U. S. 871, 379 U. S. 870. Motion for leave to file fourth petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1055,
    No. 1159,
    Misc., October Term, 1964.
    Misc., October Term, 1964.
    Hilbrich v. United States, Uselding v. United States,
   381 U. S. 941, 382 U. S. 874; and

381 U. S. 941, 382 U. S. 874. Motions for leave to file second petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1158.
    Lenske v. Oregon ex rel. Oregon State Bar,
   ante, p. 943. Motion to dispense with printing of petition for rehearing granted. Rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 481,
    Misc.
    Alford v. Arizona,
   382 U. S. 1020. Rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant the petition for rehearing, vacate the order denying the petition for a writ of certiorari and grant the petition for writ of certiorari. He would vacate the judgment below and remand the case for reconsideration in light of Miranda v. Arizona, ante, p. 436, it being impossible to say on the record whether the principles announced in that ease have been violated.


text:
    No. 1374,
    Misc.
    Moore v. California et al.,
   ante, p. 934. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

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


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    SENFOUR INVESTMENT CO., INC. v. KING COUNTY.
    No. 93.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Jerome M. Johnson for appellant.

      James E. Kennedy and William L. Paul, Jr., for appellee.

      Solicitor General Marshall and Philip A. Loomis, Jr., for the United States, as amicus curiae,,
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    JONES v. ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
    No. 102.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Ralph B. Raukx for appellant.

      John G. Bonomi for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    MORRIS PARK, INC. v. BUCK.
    No. 113.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Francis B. Feeley and James T. Healey for appellant.

      Robert H. Alcorn for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.


text:
    BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
    No. 104.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Samuel P. Delisi and Edward A. Kaier for appellants.

      Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Charles L. Marinaccio and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States et al. James M. Carter for appellee Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Co.
   Per Curiam.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.


text:
    BUCHANAN et al. v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, et al.
    No. 115.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Richard M. Markus for appellants.

      William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, and Gerald A. Donahue, First Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    JORDAN et al v. VILLAGE OF MENOMONEE FALLS.
    No. 122.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Emil Hersh, Arthur Magidso'n, Joseph A. Fanelli and James H. Mann for appellants.

      Patrick T. Bheedy for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    BENNETT v. UNITED STATES.
    No. 143.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Carl L. Shipley for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   Per Curiam.

In light of the suggestion of the Solicitor General and upon an examination of the papers filed in this case, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the United States Court of Claims is vacated and the case is remanded to that court.


text:
    ANNBAR ASSOCIATES et al. v. WEST SIDE REDEVELOPMENT CORP. et al.
    No. 152.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      William M. Kufeld for appellants.

      Guy W. Rice for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    GLICK et al. v. BALLENTINE PRODUCE, INC., et al.
    No. 168.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Elwyn L. Cady, Jr., for appellants.

      Morris H. Kross, John R. Caslavka, Harry P. Thomson, Jr., and E. E. Thompson for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    KRONSBEIN v. TRUSTEES OF SCHOOLS OF TOWNSHIP THREE et al.
    No. 183.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Kenneth F. Kelly for appellant.

      G. William Horsley for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    BOARD OF SATANTA JOINT RURAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 et al. v. GRANT COUNTY PLANNING BOARD et al.
    No. 192.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Dale M.. Stucky for appellants.

      Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General of Kansas, and J. Richard Foth, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    DOWDLE et al. v. NEW YORK et al.
    No. 204.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      John Manning Regan for appellants.

      William J. Stevens for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    CALCATERRA v. ILLINOIS.
    No. 267.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Charles A. Bellows for appellant.

      William O. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Richard A. Michael, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    TIETZ et al. v. MARIENTHAL et al.
    No. 217.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      J. B. Tietz for appellants.

      Harold W. Kennedy and Henry F. Walker for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    REYNOLDS, dba LARRY & KATZ, et al. v. LOUISIANA BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL.
    No. 229.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Saul Stone and Paul O. H. Pigman for appellants.

      George A. Bourgeois, Clem H. Sehrt and Peter J. Butler for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    UNITED STATES v. OHIO.
    No. 271.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, Morton Hollander and J. F. Bishop for the United States.

      William B. Saxhe, Attorney General of Ohio, and Gerald A. Donahue, First Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111.


text:
    FERRANTE v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
    No. 277.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Henry Mark Holzer for appellant.

      J. Lee Rankin for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    REED v. ILLINOIS.
    No. 282.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Mort A. Segall for appellant.

      William O. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Richard A. Michael and Philip J. Rock, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    TREFFRY et al. v. TAYLOR, DIRECTOR OF LICENSES FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.
    No. 291.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Francis J. Conklin for appellants.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    CAPELOUTO v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO. OF FLORIDA, INC.
    No. 316.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Wilfred C. Varn for appellant.
    /. Lewis Hall for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    MASLOWSKY et al. v. CASSIDY, CHAIRMAN, ILLINOIS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMISSION, et al.
    No. 574.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Albert E. Jenner, Jr., and Thomas P. Sullivan for appellants.

      Owen Rail for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Brennan are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.


text:
    BOOKCASE, INC., et al. v. LEARY, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.
    No. 332.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Emanuel Redfield and Benjamin E. Winston for appellants.

      J. Lee Rankin and Frank S. Hogan for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice White are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Brennan are of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    GUY v. TAHASH, WARDEN, et al.
    No. 169,
    Misc.
    Decided October 10, 1966.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.


text:
    NEUMANN v. NEW YORK.
    No. 40,
    Misc.
    Decided October 10, 1966.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    McClellan v. Huston.
    No. 96,
    Misc.
    Decided October 10, 1966.

      Albert E. Savoy for appellant.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    CROSS v. BRUNING, COUNTY CLERK OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, et al.
    No. 134,
    Misc.
    Decided October 10, 1966.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    WAKIN v. PENNSYLVANIA.
    No. 293,
    Misc.
    Decided October 10, 1966.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    BOYDEN v. MAY, WARDEN.
    No. 351,
    Misc.
    Decided October 10, 1966.
    Appellant pro se.

      Solicitor General Marshall for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed.


text:
    BRADFORD v. HELMAN, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.
    No. 389,
    Misc.
    Decided October 10, 1966.
    Appellant pro se.

      Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    SPIESEL v. ROOS.
    No. 390,
    Misc.
    Decided October 10, 1966.
    Appellant pro se.

      Anthony L. Schiavetti for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed.


text:
    BRADFORD v. POSTEL, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.
    No. 402,
    Misc.
    Decided October 10, 1966.
    Appellant pro se.

      Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    KEMP v. HULTS, COMMISSIONER OF BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES.
    No. 125.
    Decided October 17, 1966.

      Emanuel Redfield for appellant.

      Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Michael H. Rauch, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    PHELPER v. DECKER, SHERIFF.
    No. 374.
    Decided October 17, 1966.

      Charles W. Tessmer and Emmett Colvin, Jr., for petitioner.
   Per Curiam.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The order of May 6, 1966, denying the motion for a certificate of probable cause is reversed.

Mr. Justice Stewart concurs for the reasons stated in his separate memorandum in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 672.

Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White dissent and would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.


text:
    McGILL et al. v. RYALS, SHERIFF, et al.
    No. 381,
    Misc.
    Decided October 17, 1966.

      Vernon Z. Crawford, Morton Stavis, William M. Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy and Benjamin E. Smith for appellants.

      Truman Hobbs for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the case was not appropriate for a three-judge court.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that a three-judge court was properly convened and would affirm the judgment of the lower court.


text:
    ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. et al. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN et al.
    No. 220.
    Argued October 10, 1966.
    Decided October 24, 1966.

      Paul A. Porter and Dennis G. Lyons argued the cause for petitioners. With them on the briefs were Abe Krash and Daniel A. Rezneck.

      Neal Rutledge and Allan Milledge argued the cause for respondents. With them on the brief was Lester P. Schoene.

   Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

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


text:
    GILES et al. v. FRIENDLY FINANCE CO. OF BILOXI, INC., et al.
    No. 426.
    Decided October 24, 1966.

      Albert Sidney Johnston, Jr., for appellants.

      Charles B. Henley for appellees Guaranty Loan Corp. of Mississippi et al.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dispense with printing the jurisdictional statement is granted. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    JOHNSON v. CALIFORNIA.
    No. 88,
    Misc.
    Decided October 24, 1966.
    Appellant pro se.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Edward P. O’Brien and Lawrence R. Mansir, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    COLORADO-UTE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. v. WESTERN COLORADO POWER CO. et al.
    No. 437.
    Decided October 24, 1966.

      John A. Hughes, Raphael J. Moses and John J. Conway for appellant.

      Francis M. Shea, William H. Dempsey, Jr., and John R. Barry for appellees Western Colorado Power Co. et al.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    BRADFORD v. GAVAGAN, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.
    No. 574,
    Misc.
    Decided October 24, 1966.
    Appellant pro se.

      Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas

text:
    SWITZERLAND CHEESE ASSOCIATION, INC., et al. v. E. HORNE’S MARKET, INC.
    No. 42.
    Argued October 17, 1966.
    Decided November 7, 1966.

      David Toren argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were John J. McGlew and Aljred E. Page.

      Harold E. Cole argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Douglas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners brought this suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the trademark laws. 60 Stat. 427, 15 U. S. C. 1051 et seq. They sought a preliminary injunction during the pendency of the action, a permanent injunction, and damages. After issue was joined, petitioners moved for a summary judgment granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages against respondent. The District Court could not say that there was “no genuine issue as to any material fact” within the meaning of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which governs summary judgments and accordingly denied the motion. Petitioners appealed, claiming that order to be an “interlocutory” one “refusing” an injunction within the meaning of § 1292 (a)(1) of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (a)(1).

The Court of Appeals held that the order denying the motion for a summary judgment was not an “interlocutory” one within the meaning of § 1292 (a)(1) and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 351 F. 2d 552. We granted certiorari because of a conflict between that decision and those from the Second Circuit. See, e. g., Federal Glass Co. v. Loshin, 217 F. 2d 936.

Unlike some state procedures, federal law expresses the policy against piecemeal appeals. See Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176. Hence we approach this statute somewhat gingerly lest a floodgate be opened that brings into the exception many pretrial orders. It is earnestly argued, however, that, although this order denied a permanent injunction, it was nonetheless “interlocutory” within the meaning of § 1292 (a)(1) because the motion for summary judgment did service for a motion for a preliminary injunction (see Federal Glass Co. v. Loshin, supra, at 938) and that therefore “interlocutory” must also include a denial of a permanent injunction.

We take the other view not because “interlocutory” or preliminary may not at times embrace denials of permanent injunctions, but for the reason that the denial of a motion for a summary judgment because of unresolved issues of fact does not settle or even tentatively decide anything about the merits of the claim. It is strictly a pretrial order that decides only one thing — that the case should go to trial. Orders that in no way touch on the merits of the claim but only relate to pretrial procedures are not in our view “interlocutory” within the meaning of § 1292 (a)(1). We see no other way to protect the integrity of the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Harlan would affirm the judgment below on the basis of the reasoning set forth in Judge Waterman’s opinion for the Second Circuit in Chappell & Co., Inc. v. Frankel, 367 F. 2d 197.

Mr. Justice Stewart concurs in the result.

      That section provides:
      “(a) The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from:
      “(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States ... or of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.”

       Subsequent to the grant of certiorari in this case, the Second Circuit, en banc, reversed its position and held that such an order is not appealable. Chappell & Co., Inc. v. Frankel, 367 F. 2d 197.

       As Judge Charles E. Clark said, in dissent, in Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Dixon Textile Corp., 280 F. 2d 800, at 805-806:
      “A district judge’s orders advancing a case to trial ought not to be critically examined and re-examined by the cumbersome method of appeal before he has approached the stage of adjudication. . . . I believe this an intolerable burden for us, an improper and uncertain interference with trial court discretion, and a confusing invitation to indiscriminate appeals in the future — all contrary to settled federal law against piecemeal appeals.”


author: Per Curiam. Mr. Justice Harlan,

text:
    BLACK v. UNITED STATES.
    No. 1029,
    October Term, 1965.
    Certiorari denied May 2, 1966
    Rehearing and certiorari granted and case decided November 7, 1966.

      Hans A. Nathan, Warren E. Magee and Bert B. Rand for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   Per Curiam.

In Davis v. United States, post, p. 927, we today denied the- petition for certiorari. The sole question raised there (but not passed upon by the Court of Appeals because not necessary to its disposition) involved petitioners’ claim that conferences between petitioners and their counsel were surreptitiously overheard and intercepted by law enforcement officials through concealed monitorial devices built into the jail where petitioners were being held for federal authorities. The Solicitor General did not deny the existence of the devices but said that there were no recordings of the conversations in question. He pointed out that since the case has been remanded by the Court of Appeals for a new trial on other grounds, a full exploration of this question could be made on retrial. In the light of these representations we denied the petition for certiorari so that the question might be fully explored at the new trial, as suggested by the Solicitor General.

In the instant case, Black v. United States, the petition for rehearing now raises a similar question and while Davis v. United States, supra, is not controlling, its relation is obvious. In Black the Solicitor General advised the Court voluntarily on May 24, 1966, after the petition for certiorari had been denied, 384 U. S. 927, but before an application for rehearing had been filed, that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in a matter unrelated to this case, on February 7, 1963, installed a listening device in petitioner’s hotel suite in Washington, D. C. The device monitored and taped conversations held in the hotel suite during the period the offense was being investigated and beginning some two months before and continuing until about one month after the evidence in this case was presented to the Grand Jury. During that period, “the monitoring agents,” the Solicitor General advised, “overheard, among other conversations, exchanges between petitioner and the attorney who was then representing him [Black]” in this case. In a supplemental memorandum filed July 13, 1966, the Solicitor General, in response to an inquiry by the Court, stated that the recordings of such interceptions had been erased from the tapes but that notes summarizing and sometimes quoting the conversations intercepted were available, and that reports and memoranda concerning the same had been made. “Neither the reports nor the memoranda,” he reported, “were seen by attorneys of the Tax Division responsible for the prosecution of” this case until January 1964, when in preparing for trial they were included in material transmitted to them; the reports and memo-randa of the intercepted conversations were examined by the Tax Division attorneys and retained by them until April 15, 1964, when petitioner’s trial began; and the attorneys never realized until April 21, 1966, that any conversations between Black and his attorney had been overheard and included in the transcriptions.

The Solicitor General advised further that the “Tax Division attorneys found nothing in the F. B. I. reports or memoranda which they considered relevant to the tax evasion case.” He suggests that the judgment be vacated and remanded to the District Court in which the “relevant materials would be produced and the court would determine, upon an adversary hearing, whether petitioner’s conviction should stand.” We have sometimes used this technique in federal criminal cases, United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., 355 U. S. 233. However, its use has never been automatic. Indeed, in Remmer v. United States, 347 U. S. 227, we found it necessary, despite the hearing in the District Court, to subsequently order a new trial on the merits, 350 U. S. 377. There are other complicating factors here that were not present in Remmer. There the judge had been informed of the alleged jury tampering, but here neither the judge, the petitioner nor his counsel knew of the action of the federal agents. Moreover, the Solicitor General advises that the Tax Division attorneys did not know at the time of the trial that conversations between Black and his attorney were included in the transcriptions. In view of these facts it appears that justice'requires that a new trial be held so as to afford the petitioner an opportunity to protect himself from the use of evidence that might be otherwise inadmissible.

This Court has never been disposed to vacate convictions without adequate justification, but, under the circumstances presented by the Solicitor Ceneral in this case we believe that a new trial must be held. This will give the parties an opportunity to present the relevant evidence and permit the trial judge to decide the questions involved. It will also permit the removal of any doubt as to Black’s receiving a fair trial with full consideration being, given to the new evidence reported to us by the Solicitor General.

The petition for rehearing is therefore granted, the order denying certiorari vacated, certiorari granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals vacated and the cause remanded to the District Court for a new trial.

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Mr. Justice Harlan,

whom Mr. Justice Stewart joins, dissenting.

The denial of certiorari in No. 245, Davis v. United States—where the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has already ordered a new trial on grounds wholly unrelated to alleged eavesdropping and at which trial petitioners will have a full opportunity to explore their contentions that the Government interfered with their constitutionally protected right to counsel — bears no solid relation to, still less furnishes justification for, what the Court has done in the present case. A brief statement of the circumstances of the Black disposition will reveal that in summarily vacating this final conviction and ordering a completely new trial the Court has acted prematurely.

In 1964, petitioner Black was convicted in the District Court of federal income tax violations. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on November 10, 1965. 122 U. S. App. D. C. 347, 353 F. 2d 885. Certiorari was denied by this Court on May 2, 1966. 384 U. S. 927. Before Black’s petition for rehearing was filed here, the Solicitor General filed a memorandum bringing to the Court's attention the fact that in the course of an unrelated criminal investigation Black’s hotel suite had been “bugged” by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and conversations between Black and his attorney electronically recorded. The Solicitor General further stated that in consequence of an investigation, instituted by him following his discovery of this occurrence, he was able to represent to the Court that none of the information so procured had been utilized in Black’s aforesaid prosecution. In a further memorandum, filed in compliance with a request from this Court, the Solicitor General has represented that it was not until late August 1965 that the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice learned that a listening device had been installed in Black’s hotel suite and not until April 21, 1966, that attorneys in the Tax Division, responsible for the prosecution, learned that any conversations between Black and his counsel had been overheard.

The Solicitor General recognizes that Black is entitled to a full exploration of the matter, and to that end suggests that the case be remanded to the District Court for a hearing and findings on the episode in question as it may bear on the validity of Black’s conviction. Black responds that this course is inadequate and contends that this Court should, without more, forthwith order dismissal of the indictment in this income tax prosecution.

Without anything more before it than the representations made by both sides, the Court today orders a totally new trial in spite of the fact that the disclosures com-xnendably made by the Solicitor General reveal no use of “bugged” material in Black’s prosecution, and no knowledge by prosecuting attorneys that material may have been improperly obtained. I agree, of course, that petitioner is entitled to a full-scale development of the facts, but I can see no valid reason why this unim-peached conviction should be vacated at this stage. In Davis, supra, exploration of the alleged eavesdropping episode is appropriate upon the retrial of the case since the original conviction has already fallen on other grounds. In the Black case, however, a new trial is not an appropriate vehicle for sorting out the eavesdropping issue because until it is determined that such occurrence vitiated the original conviction no basis for a retrial exists. The Court’s action puts the cart before the horse. The orderly procedure is to remand the case to the District Court for a hearing and findings on the issues in question. See United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., 355 U. S. 233. See also Remmer v. United States, 347 U. S. 227, 350 U. S. 377. Unless and until the facts on this issue have been resolved and their legal effect assessed favorably to petitioner, this conviction should remain undisturbed.

The only basis I can think of for justifying this decision is that any governmental activity of the kind here in question automatically vitiates, so as at least to require a new trial, any conviction occurring during the span of such activity. But I cannot believe that the Court, without even briefing or argument, intends to make any such sweeping innovation in the federal criminal law by today’s peremptory disposition of this case.


author: Per Curiam. Mr. Justice Black,

text:
    PITTSBURGH TOWING CO. v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. et al.
    No. 319.
    Decided November 7, 1966.

      Ernie Adamson for appellant.

      Arthur L. Winn, Jr., Samuel H. Moerman, J. Raymond Clark and James M. Henderson for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted for failure of appellant to comply with the time requirement of Rule 13 (1) of the Rules of this Court in docketing its appeal. This appeal was docketed 22 days after expiration of the 60-day period provided by the Rule. During that period, appellant made no application for an enlargement of time, either to the District Court or to a Justice of this Court (see Rule 13 (1)), nor did any explanation accompany the untimely docketing of the appeal. The jurisdictional statement itself is silent on the subject. Not until appellee moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 14 (2) did appellant comment upon its default. Its reply to the Motion to Dismiss states that the “delay was occasioned by a misunderstanding between Counsel for appellant.” It does not elaborate.

This Court has been generous in excusing errors of counsel, but if there are to be rules, there must be some limit to our willingness to overlook their violation. While we are inclined to be generous in exercising our discretion to forgive a mistake and waive the consequences of negligence, fairness to other counsel and to parties with business before the Court as well as due regard for our own procedures leads us to believe that this case does not warrant our indulgence.

Mr. Justice Black,

dissenting.

Due to a misunderstanding among appellant’s lawyers this case was not docketed nor was the record filed until 22 days after the 60-day period prescribed by this Court’s Rule 13 (1). The Court now, quite contrary to its recent practices, dismisses the case pursuant to Rule 14 (2) because of this error of appellant’s lawyers. Rule 14 (2) permits, but does not require, such a harsh court order to be made. Appellant’s counsel, upon reporting the misunderstanding to a member of this Court, could unquestionably have obtained an enlargement of the time to docket the case extending even beyond the 22 days within which the record was actually filed. There is no indication whatever that the appellees, their counsel or other parties with business before this Court have been injured — as the Court seems to intimate without record support — by this slight formalistic delinquency. On the contrary, the appellant is denied review of a judgment setting aside an Interstate Commerce Commission order, a type of three-judge district court judgment from which Congress has seen fit to give aggrieved persons a direct appeal to this Court. Thus, for a mere paper-filing negligence of appellant’s counsel, the purpose of Congress to grant reviews of this special category of administrative orders is frustrated.

This case is now to take its place among a growing number of others where mere procedural rules have been used to prevent the consideration and determination of cases on their merits. See, e. g., Lord v. Helmandollar, 121 U. S. App. D. C. 168, 348 F. 2d 780, cert. denied, 383 U. S. 928, Black, J., dissenting; Riess v. Murchison, cert. denied, 383 U. S. 946, Black, J., dissenting; Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U. S. 626, 636, Black, J., joined by The Chief Justice, dissenting; Beaufort Concrete Co. v. Atlantic States Constr. Co., 384 U. S. 1004, Black, J., dissenting; Santana v. United States, post, p. 848, Black, J., dissenting. I find it inconsistent with a fair system of justice to throw out a litigant’s case because his lawyer, due to negligence, or misunderstanding, or some other reason fails to satisfy one of many procedural time limits. If a pound of flesh is required because of negligence of a lawyer, why not impose the penalty on him and not his innocent client?

As I have previously stated, “The filing of court papers on time is, of course, important in our court system. But lawsuits are not conducted to reward the litigant whose lawyer is most diligent or to punish the litigant whose lawyer is careless. Procedural paper requirements should never stand as a series of dangerous hazards to the achievement of justice through a fair trial on the merits.” Beaufort Concrete Co., supra, at 1006, Black, J., dissenting. The conflict between the interest of the court clerk in the timely filing of papers and the interest of the citizen in having his lawsuit tried should be resolved in favor of the citizen, not the court clerk. I would not dismiss this case for violation of Rule 13 (1).


text:
    KELSEY et al. v. CORBETT et al.
    No. 475.
    Decided November 7, 1966.

      Boyd Laughlin for appellants.

      Thomas C. Wicker, Jr., for appellees Corbett et al.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    CARR v. CITY OF ALTUS et al.
    No. 481.
    Decided November 7, 1966.

      Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, pro se, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, T. B. Wright, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and J. Arthur Sandlin, George C. Black, Jr., and Roger Tyler, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.

      A. W. Walker, Jr., for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.


text:
    MASSEY v. GEORGIA.
    No. 630,
    Misc.
    Decided November 7, 1966.

      Floyd H. Wardlow, Jr., and John R. Rogers for appellant.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    MATRANGA v. McDONNELL, SHERIFF.
    No. 686,
    Misc.
    Decided November 7, 1966.

      Albert Sidney Johnston and John M. Sekul for appellant.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING CO. v. UNITED STATES et al.
    No. 486.
    Decided November 7, 1966.

      Leslie Hodson, Hammond E. Chaff etz, Joseph DuCoeur and Richard J. Archer for appellant.

      Solicitor General Marshall and Assistant Attorney General Turner for the United States, and Burnham Enersen and Stephen Grant for General Brewing Corp., appellees.

      Godfrey L. Munter, Jr., for Ray et al., as amici curiae, in support of appellant.
   Per Curiam.

The motion of Philip A. Ray et al., for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Harlan is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and would set the case for argument.


text:
    AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, AFL-CIO v. UNITED STATES et al.
    No. 496.
    Decided November 7, 1966.

      I. J. Grom-fine and Herman Sternstein for appellant in No. 496.

      David Previant and Herbert S. Thatcher for appellants in No. 497.

      Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Charles L. Marinaccio, Robert W. Ginnane and Leonard S. Goodman for the United States et al. in both cases.

      James E. Wilson and Warren Woods for American Buslines, Inc., and Robert J. Corber for National Association of Motor Bus Owners, appellees in No. 496.

      William T. Croft for Overnite Transportation Co. et al., appellees in No. 497.

      Together with No. 497, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America et al. v. United States et al., also on appeal from the same court.

   Per Curiam.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.