author: Per Curiam.

text:
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. TEXACO, INC., et al.
    No. 635.
    Decided June 7, 1965.

      Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum, James Mel. Henderson, Alvin L. Berman and Louis R. Harding for petitioner.

      Milton Handler and Frederick W. P. Lorenzen for Texaco, Inc., and Edgar E. Barton and Macdonald Flinn for B. F. Goodrich Co., respondents.
   Per Curiam.

In this case the Federal Trade Commission entered a cease-and-desist order prohibiting Texaco, Inc., and the B. F. Goodrich Company from participating in any sales-commission program for the distribution of tires, batteries and accessories. The Court of Appeals set the order aside and remanded to the Commission with instructions to dismiss the complaint. The court held, first, that Chairman Dixon was disqualified from participating in the decision because he had indicated in a speech made while the case was pending that he had prejudged it. The majority of the court held, further, that the Commission’s order was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Although it recognized that under these circumstances a remand would ordinarily be called for, the court concluded that because of the delays that had existed throughout the litigation the complaint should be dismissed.

The United States does not seek review of the ruling that Chairman Dixon was disqualified from participating in this case. We therefore venture no opinion as to the correctness of that conclusion. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded with instructions to remand it immediately to the Federal Trade Commission for further proceedings, without the participation of Chairman Dixon, in light of Atlantic Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, ante, p. 357. The judgment shall issue forthwith.

Vacated and remanded.

Mr.' Justice Goldberg would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for reconsideration by the Federal Trade Commission, without the participation of Chairman Dixon, in accordance with the views expressed in Mr. Justice Goldberg’s dissenting opinion in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, ante, at 382.

Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Stewart’s dissenting opinion in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, ante, at 377.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam. Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice White,

license: Public Domain

text:
    CAMERON et al. v. JOHNSON, GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI, et al.
    No. 587,
    Misc.
    Decided June 7, 1965.

      Arthur Kinoy, William M. Kunstler, Benjamin E. Smith, Bruce C. Waltzer, Melvin Wulf and Morton Stavis for appellants.

      Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General of Mississippi, and William A. Attain, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

Appellants brought this action, inter alia, under § 1979 of the Revised Statutes, 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1958 ed.), to enjoin enforcement of the Mississippi Anti-Picketing statute, on the grounds that it was an unconstitutionally broad regulation of speech, and that it was being applied for the purpose of discouraging appellants’ civil rights activities.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment is vacated and the cause remanded for reconsideration in light of Domhrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479. On remand, the District Court should first consider whether 28 U. S. C. § 2283 (1958 ed.) bars a federal injunction in this case, see 380 U. S., at 484, n. 2. If § 2283 is not a bar, the court should then determine whether relief is proper in light of the criteria set forth in Dombrowski.

Mr. Justice Black,

with whom Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart join,

dissenting.

I dissent from the reversal of this judgment and from the manner in which it is done. A cryptic, uninformative per curiam order is no way, I think, for this Court to decide a case involving as this one does a State’s power to make it an offense for people to obstruct public streets and highways and to block ingress and egress to and from its public buildings and properties. The case also involves the question whether, having passed such a law, valid on its face, the State can prosecute offenders in its own courts or whether United States courts have power to enjoin all state prosecutions merely because of a charge that the law is unconstitutional on its face, without first determining the constitutionality of the statute.

Every person who has the slightest information about what is going on in this country can understand the importance of these issues. The summary disposition the Court makes of this case fails properly to enlighten state or federal courts or the people who deserve to know what are the rights of the people, the rights of affected groups, the rights of the Federal Government, and the rights of the States in this field of activities which encompasses some of the most burning, pressing and important issues of our time. There are many earnest, honest, good people in this Nation who are entitled to know exactly how far they have a constitutional right to go in using the public streets to advocate causes they consider just. State officials are also entitled to the same information. The Court has already waited entirely too long, in my judgment, to perform its duty of clarifying these constitutional issues. These issues are of such great importance that I am of the opinion that before this Court relegates the States to the position of mere onlookers in struggles over their streets and the accesses to their public buildings, this Court should at least write an opinion making clear to the States and interested people the boundaries between what they can do in this field and what they cannot. Today’s esoteric and more or less mysterious per curiam order gives no such information.

This action was brought by and on behalf of picketers and demonstrators in Mississippi, some of whom have charges now pending against them which were brought in the Mississippi state courts for violating a Mississippi statute which provided:

“It shall be unlawful for any person, singly or in concert with others, to engage in picketing or mass demonstrations in such a manner as to obstruct or interfere with free ingress or egress to and from any public premises, State property, county or municipal courthouses, city halls, office buildings, jails, or other public buildings or property owned by the State of Mississippi or any county or municipal government located therein or with the transaction of public business or administration of justice therein or thereon conducted or so as to obstruct or interfere with free use of public streets, sidewalks or other public ways adjacent or contiguous thereto.”

Their complaint in the United States District Court asked that the Governor of Mississippi and other state officials be enjoined from enforcing the statute against them and others. The complaint alleged that the law was unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the plaintiffs and persons similarly situated because the language of the statute was so vague and ambiguous that a person of ordinary intelligence could not understand it, and so broad and sweeping in its terms that it could be used, had been used, and would be used, to harass and persecute the plaintiffs and others, not merely for blocking streets and doors and passageways, but also for simply picketing and demonstrating, activities which this statute does not prohibit. They alleged in addition that the Mississippi Legislature actually passed the law to discourage picketers and demonstrators from protesting against state denial of voting rights to Negroes. The District Court majority found as a fact on the evidence stipulated by the parties that neither the plaintiffs nor anyone else had been interfered with for simply picketing and demonstrating, and also found that

“on the occasions in suit when some of the plaintiffs were arrested and charged with violating this Act, that such persons deliberately and intentially [sic] blocked the sidewalk and one of the entrances to the county courthouse in Forrest County, Mississippi, by walking so close together as to make use of such entrance and exit to and from said county courthouse by the officials and business visitors impossible.”

The District Court held that no serious claim could be made that the statute was unconstitutionally vague or too broad on its face, and therefore refused to issue an injunction forbidding the prosecution of offenses under that law. And having found from the evidence that there had been no harassment of the plaintiffs, except as harassment could be said to exist in the ordinary enforcement of any valid law, the court refused to enjoin the state officials from enforcing the law against them and others, and dismissed the complaint.

If, as I believe, the Mississippi statute is not unconstitutional on its face, then the District Court in dismissing the complaint and leaving the trials to the state courts acted in accordance with an unbroken line of this Court’s cases going back to the early days of this country. See, e. g., Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157; Watson v. Buck, 313 U. S. 387; Beal v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 312 U. S. 45; Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89; Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240. It is true that Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, held that state officials could be enjoined from harassing people by starting multitudinous criminal prosecutions against them where severe cumulative punishments might accrue before the constitutionality of the state law involved could be tested. In the absence of some such extraordinary situation, however, this Court has uniformly held that federal courts should refrain from interfering with enforcement of state criminal laws. Thus in Douglas v. City of Jeannette, supra, this Court found no reason to permit a federal court to enjoin a state criminal proceeding even though the statute involved was the same day declared unconstitutional in a similar application. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105.

The Court in its cryptic per curiam order directs that “On remand, the District Court should first consider whether 28 U. S. C. § 2283 (1958 ed.) bars a federal injunction in this case . . . .” But the District Court has already considered § 2283 and at the very beginning of its opinion stated that § 2283

“. . . is not jurisdictional, but expresses very clearly and definitely the policy and thinking of Congress. Such a statute has been on the books for many years and still stands in the above quoted form. Certainly there are times and occasions which are exceptional, when it is proper for the Court to enjoin the prosecution of a criminal case, but the facts of this case and of this record do not approach such a situation.” - F. Supp., at — -.

The appellants argue that 28 U. S. C. § 2283, which bars injunctions against actions already instituted in state courts, is not applicable here because the pending prosecutions were removed and the remand orders have been stayed, and because in this class action “The basic relief sought in the complaint is the enjoining of the prospective enforcement of the state statute . . . .” The question of applicability of § 2283 is here on appeal, and if the Court is uncertain about that statute’s application here it has the duty to decide the question now and not remand to the lower court which has already decided it.

The Court’s exceedingly brief order directs the District Court on remand, if § 2283 does not bar this action, to “determine whether relief is proper in light of the criteria set forth in Dombrowski” v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479. Apparently the Court means to indicate that this recent decision created a new rule authorizing federal courts to enjoin state officers from enforcing state laws even though clearly and narrowly drawn to forbid picketers and demonstrators from obstructing street traffic and blocking the entrances of public buildings. The Court by citing Dombrowski seems to be indicating the existence of such a rule, since it would be a futile gesture to remand the case to the District Court merely to have it state formally what it said in dismissing under the Jeannette rule before: that “There is no basis of fact in this record or by a reasonable construction of the statute by which its constitutionality could be doubted.” Since the District Court has expressed its view that the statute is constitutional on its face and has found in addition that there has been no unlawful harassing application of it, there is no reason for us to remand the case to the District Court unless this Court wants either to upset the District Court’s findings of fact or to order the District Court to hold, as this Court held about a subversive activities statute in Dombrowski, that the statute challenged is also unconstitutional on its face.

I did not participate in Dombrowski, but I. do not think it is applicable here. Dombroioski did approve federal district court injunctions to prevent state officers from enforcing a state statute alleged and found to b.e void on its face as a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments on the ground .that overbreadth made it susceptible of sweeping and improper application abridging freedom of expression, where it was also alleged that the statute was part of a plan “to employ arrests, seizures, and threats of prosecution” under the statute in a way that would discourage the complainants and their supporters from asserting and attempting to vindicate their constitutional rights. This Court in Dombrowski held, as T read the opinion, that an injunction against any enforcement of any kind of the state statute (as distinguished from an order enjoining state officers from committing lawless acts) could issue there only because (1) there were threats of prosecutions purely to harass, with no hope of ultimate success, (2) the law was challenged as, and found to be on its face, an “overly broad and vague regulation of expression,” and (3) “no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statute in a single prosecution . . . .” Crucial to the holding in Dombrowski that any enforcement whatever of the statute should be enjoined was this Court’s finding that the statute involved was unconstitutional on its face. This is clearly shown by the Court’s statement that:

“[A]bstention serves no legitimate purpose where a statute regulating speech is properly attacked on its face, and where, as here, the conduct charged in the indictments is not within the reach of an acceptable limiting construction readily to be anticipated as the result of a single criminal prosecution and is not the sort of ‘hard-core’ conduct that would obviously be prohibited under any construction.” 380 U. S., at 491-492. (Emphasis supplied.)

Dombrowski also indicates to me that there might be cases in which state or federal officers, acting under color of a law which is valid, could be enjoined from engaging in unlawful conduct which deprives persons of their federally guaranteed statutory or constitutional rights. Compare 17 Stat. 13, 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1958 ed.). Stating these bases for permitting injunction against all enforcement in Dombrowski, most of which bases are not present here, is enough without more to show that Dombrowski cannot control the decision in this case. Here there is no allegation of improper conduct by law enforcement officers, and in fact, there is a specific finding to the contrary. And certainly the one unquestionably indispensable ingredient of Dombrowski required for a blanket injunction on enforcement — a finding that the statute is unconstitutionally vague or broad on its face — is absent here unless the Court is convinced, without even hearing argument, that this Mississippi statute is unconstitutional on its face as an infringement on constitutionally protected expression.

I think that no such claim of unconstitutionality on its face can possibly be maintained. What the Mississippi statute forbids is so clear that any person of ordinary intelligence can or should understand it. I find it hard to take seriously a vagueness argument, since I doubt that there is a fourth grade schoolboy in this country who would not understand that the statute forbids him, either alone or with others, to block or obstruct ingress and egress to and from Mississippi public buildings (here a courthouse) and to obstruct free use of the streets adjacent to those public properties. Nor is the statute overly broad in what it covers. It does not even undertake, to forbid or regulate picketing or demonstrating on the streets (as I think it could — see Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559, 575 (concurring opinion); Labor Board v. Fruit & Vegetable Packers, 377 U. S. 58, 76 (concurring opinion)). It simply modestly provides that those who carry on such activities shall do so in a way that will not obstruct others who want to use the streets to travel or want to go in or out of a public building. The Mississippi statute is narrowly and precisely drawn, patently designed to accomplish this objective. Thus it fits this Court’s often-repeated description of the kind of law which should be drawn in the State’s exercise of its generally unquestioned constitutional power to regulate picketing and street activities. See, e. g., Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 554-555; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 105; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 160-161. Far from questioning the power of States to regulate conduct on the streets and in public buildings, this Court said in Schneider v. State, supra, at 160:

“Municipal authorities, as trustees for the public, have the duty to keep their communities’ streets open and available for movement of people and property, the primary purpose to which the streets are dedicated. So long as legislation to this end does not abridge the constitutional liberty of one rightfully upon the street to impart information through speech or the distribution of literature, it may lawfully regulate the conduct of those using the streets. For example, a person could not exercise this liberty by taking his stand in the middle of a crowded street, contrary to traffic regulations, and maintain his position to the stoppage of all traffic . . . .”

It would seem inconsistent with our whole federal system to say that the Federal Constitution somehow takes away from States and their subdivisions the general power to control their streets and ingress and egress to and from their public buildings and other public properties. Such state control would have to be exercised consistently with special federal constitutional guarantees, such as the right not to be discriminated against on account of race, color or religion; but the statute here does not, on its face, draw any such invidious discriminations and the statute is attacked on its face. And of course Mississippi has no less power over its public buildings and streets than does any other State.

The Mississippi statute is in many respects like one that this Court sustained a few months ago against a challenge that it was void for vagueness on its face, and that it was an unjustified restriction upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. That statute, modeled after an Act of Congress passed in 1950, 64 Stat. 1018, 18 U. S. C. § 1507 (1958 ed.), made it an offense in Louisiana to picket or parade in or near a courthouse with an intent of interfering with or obstructing or impeding the administration of justice. The Court’s opinion stated:

“The conduct which is the subject of this statute— picketing and parading — is subject to regulation even though intertwined with expression and association.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559, 563.

And in a companion case, decided the same day, this Court stated: “Governmental authorities have the duty and responsibility to keep their streets open and available for movement.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 554-555. “A group of demonstrators,” this Court said, “could not insist upon the right to cordon off a street, or entrance to a public or private building, and allow no one to pass who did not agree to listen to their exhortations.” Id., at 555. The Court also emphasized in that same case that the “control of travel on the streets is a clear example of governmental responsibility to insure” “public order, without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of anarchy.” Id., at 554. It is true that we have only recently held that Mississippi must not deny the constitutional right of Negroes to register and vote. United States v. Mississippi, 380 U. S. 128. But this, of course, does not mean that no good or valid law could come out of the State of Mississippi. We should without hesitation condemn as unconstitutional discriminatory voting laws of Mississippi or of any other State. We should with equal firmness, however, approve a law which on its face is designed merely to carry out the State’s responsibility to protect people who want to get into and out of the State’s public buildings and to move along its highways freely without obstruction.

I cannot believe for one moment that this Court in Dombrowski intended to authorize federal injunctions completely suspending all enforcement of a constitutionally valid state criminal law merely because state defendants allege that state officials are about to harass them by doing no more than enforcing that valid law against them in the state courts. If Dombrowski held any such thing, I think the quicker that case is reconsidered in order to give it a “limiting construction” the better it will be for the courts, the States, the United States and the people in this country who want to live in an atmosphere of peace and quiet. Creating new hurdles to the conviction of people who violate valid laws cannot be ranked as one of the most pressing and exigent needs of the times, to say the least. Perhaps at no time in the Nation’s history has there been a greater need to make clear to all that the United States Constitution does not render States impotent to require people permitted to advocate views and air grievances on the streets to do so without obstructing the use of those streets by those who want to use them to move from place to place — the primary use for which all the people pay taxes to build and maintain streets.

The record in this case tells us that there are probably hundreds of cases like these in one State alone. It is not difficult to foresee that reversal of the District Court’s denial of injunction here will be a signal and invitation for many, many more efforts to tie the hands of state officials in many more States on charges that threatened prosecutions under valid laws are prompted by a desire to harass. Much has been said of late about the threat to prompt and efficient administration of justice from the increasing workload of our United States courts. If that is a valid argument in deciding cases, it is not amiss to point out that the rule which the Court implicitly adopts here is bound to bring an ever-increasing number of cases into federal courts, where state prosecutions will be enjoined until a federal court can first weigh the .motives of state officials in instituting prosecutions. This of course means more and more delays between the arrests of people accused of violating state laws and their trials. The law’s delays — which many believe are really a guilty man’s most effective defense — are bound to be multiplied beyond measure. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that this is a big country — too big to expect the Federal Government to take over the creation and enforcement of local criminal laws throughout the country. The Nation was not formed with any such purpose in mind. It is wise and right and in conformity with the national governmental plan for federal courts to be vigilant and alert to protect federally guaranteed rights. But we put too much strain on the federal courts if we bodily transfer from state- to federal-court jurisdiction what is, in effect, the initial step in the trial of persons charged with violating state or local criminal laws which are far from being unconstitutional on their face. The Federal Constitution certainly does not require us to do it and, in my judgment, forbids it. I would affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Mr. Justice White,

dissenting.

I dissent from the per curiam remand of this case on the authority of Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, for while I joined the opinion of the Court in Dombrowski, I do not think it is applicable here.

The appellants in Dombrowski attacked numerous and sundry provisions of Louisiana’s Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law and the Communist Propaganda Control Law on the ground that the statutes “violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees securing freedom of expression, because overbreadth makes them susceptible of sweeping and improper application abridging those rights.” 380 U. S. 479, 482. There was also an allegation of threats to enforce these sweeping provisions as part of a “plan to employ arrests, seizures, and threats of prosecution under color of the statutes to harass” the appellants and to discourage their protected activities. The lower court denied relief on the ground that these allegations did not present a case of threatened irreparable injury to constitutional rights warranting the intervention of a federal court. We reversed. The Court, at the outset, fully and explicitly accepted the teaching of the cases “that federal interference with a State’s good-faith administration of its criminal laws is peculiarly inconsistent with our federal framework” and that “the mere possibility of erroneous initial application of constitutional standards will usually not amount to the irreparable injury necessary to justify a disruption of orderly state proceedings.” 380 U. S., at 484-485. Without questioning the rule that the possible invalidity of a state statute is not itself ground for equitable relief, Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 214, or the imminence of prosecution under such a statute, since no person is immune from prosecution in good faith for alleged criminal acts, Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157, 163-164, we held that there was a sufficient showing of threatened irreparable injury to federal rights, which could not be dissipated by a particular prosecution, to warrant equitable intervention by a federal court. What was controlling on both the exercise of equitable power and the abstention issue was the depiction of a “situation in which defense of the State’s criminal prosecution will not assure adequate vindication of constitutional rights.” 380 U. S., at 485. The situation depicted here does not contain the elements which were operative in Dombrowski.

Dombrowski did not hold that the traditional equitable limitations on a federal court’s power to enjoin imminent or pending criminal proceedings are relaxed whenever a statute is attacked as void on its face or as applied in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Rather that case makes clear that two particular kinds of challenges to state criminal statutes warrant extraordinary intervention in a State’s criminal processes. They are planned prosecutorial misuse of a statute regulating freedom of expression and a vagueness attack on such a statute. Where threats of enforcement are without any expectation of conviction and are “part of a plan to employ arrests, seizures, and threats of prosecution under color of the statutes to harass,” it is obvious that defense in a state criminal prosecution will not suffice to avoid irreparable injury. The very prosecution is said to be a part of the unconstitutional scheme and the scheme, including future use of the statutes, is quite irrelevant to the prosecution in the state courts. Similarly where a plethora of statutory provisions are assailed as invalidly vague, uncertain or overbroad, with a consequent reach into areas of expression protected by the First Amendment, and such provisions are not susceptible of clarifying construction under the impact of one case, defense in the state prosecution cannot remove the unconstitutional vice of vagueness. For “those affected by a statute are entitled to be free of the burdens of defending prosecutions, however expeditious, aimed at hammering out the structure of the statute piecemeal, with no likelihood of obviating similar uncertainty for others.” Dom-browski v. Pfister, 380 TJ. S., at 491. To relegate the party to defense in a state proceeding would be likely to leave standing a statute susceptible of having a severe in ter-rorem effect on expression, even if one prosecuted under such a statute is not convicted. It is this reasoning that accounts for relaxation of the abstention doctrine where sweeping and unclear statutes are attacked on their face, as in Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, a case quite pertinent to the rationale of Dombrowski.

Here there is no more harassment alleged than that ordinarily and necessarily entailed by a criminal prosecution based on a good faith belief that the defendants have violated a statute. Although it is said that the statute is aimed at demonstrations, and that the prosecutions interfere with them, these allegations do not charge a misuse of the statute. Indeed, the petitioners allege that the picketing said to be unlawful under it was peaceful and nonobstructive, and the State claims quite the contrary. This issue is at the core of the criminal trial and to decide it in a federal court represents a wholly duplica-tive adjudication of an ordinary factual matter in dispute in a state criminal trial.

Nor do I think that any substantial claim of vagueness or overbroadness can be made about the statute here at issue. Its provisions are these:

“It shall be unlawful for any person, singly or in concert with others, to engage in picketing or mass demonstrations in such a manner as to obstruct or interfere with free ingress or egress to and from any public premises, State property, county or municipal courthouses, city halls, office buildings, jails, or other public buildings or property owned by the State of Mississippi or any county or municipal government located therein or with the transaction of public business or administration of justice therein or thereon conducted or so as to obstruct or interfere with free use of public streets, sidewalks or other public ways adjacent or contiguous thereto.”

To me the terms “obstruct” and “interfere” raise no issues of vagueness or overbreadth such as were considered to be present in Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, and Dombrowski, 380 U. S. 479, for the terms are neither unclear nor open-ended. The statute does not deal with belief or expression as such — it does not ban all forms of picketing, Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559 — but rather with obstructions to and interferences with ingress or egress to and from public buildings and the sidewalks and streets contiguous thereto, assuredly permissible subjects of state regulation. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 554. The statute does “aim specifically at evils within the allowable area of state control,” Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 97, and does not leave one to guess at where fanciful possibility ends and intended coverage begins. Cf. Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 373-375.

The constitutional challenge to this statute which thus emerges is, in my view, an assertion that the type of conduct covered by the clear terms of the statute, obstructive picketing at public buildings, for example, cannot constitutionally be proscribed. Whether the attack is made on the face of the statute or as applied is beside the point, for in neither case would there be those special circumstances which Dombrowski requires to sanction federal intervention into a State’s criminal processes. Whatever “criteria” Dombrowski contains, they do not indicate that in this situation the ordinary rule barring injunctive relief against state criminal prosecutions should be waived.

“[T]he mere possibility of erroneous initial application of constitutional standards will usually not amount to the irreparable injury necessary to justify a disruption of orderly state proceedings,” and what is required for extraordinary intervention is a “situation in which defense of the State’s criminal prosecution will not assure adequate vindication of constitutional rights.” Dom-browski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 484-485. In Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157, the Court denied injunc-tive relief against threatened application of a city ordinance to constitutionally protected religious solicitation, “since the lawfulness or constitutionality of the statute or ordinance on which the prosecution is based may be determined as readily in the criminal case as in a suit for an injunction.” 319 U. S., at 163. The constitutional challenge to this Mississippi statute, unlike the attack on the statutes in Dombrowski v. Pfister and Baggett v. Bullitt, but indistinguishable from that in Douglas v. City of Jeannette, does not entail “extensive adjudications, under the impact of a variety of factual situations,” Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 378, to bring it within constitutional bounds. This is not a case where “no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution.” Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S., at 491.

In these circumstances it is difficult to see what hazards to federal rights are posed by requiring one to follow orderly proceedings in the state courts. Numerous cases establish that the possible invalidity of a statute, or the imminence of a prosecution under it, itself will not suffice to warrant intervention. Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 214; Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240; Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89; Beal v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 312 U. S. 45; Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157. Dombrowski v. Pfister is not to the contrary.

It is obvious, however, that several of my Brethren find more guidance in Dombrowski than I do and more than I think a district judge can find in either that case or this unrevealing per curiam remand, which ignores the differences between this case and Dombrowski. The issues are important and of immediate concern and I would note probable jurisdiction and set this case down for argument.

      House Bill No. 546, Gen. Laws of Miss. 1964, c. 343.

       See Bell v. Maryland, 378 U. S. 226, 242 (opinion of Douglas, J.); id., at 318 (Black, J., dissenting); Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U. S. 306, 318 (Black, J., dissenting).

       We are informed that after the decision of the District Court in the present case, 170 of the state-court defendants removed their prosecutions to a federal district court, purportedly under authority of 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (1958 ed.). The Federal District Court ordered the cases remanded to the state courts. The Court of Appeals stayed the remand orders, and an appeal from those orders is now pending before the Fifth Circuit. Hartfield v. Mississippi, No. 21811; Anderson v. Mississippi, No. 21813; Carmichael v. City of Greenwood, No. 22289. It can be assumed that if appellants are unsuccessful in the Fifth Circuit they will seek review in this Court, which will take at least another year. Today’s decision appears to add more devices to the collection of delaying tactics by which state criminal defendants may use collateral litigation in the federal courts to prevent their prosecutions in state courts from coming to trial for many years, if ever.

       House Bill No. 546, Gen. Laws of Miss. 1964, c. 343.

       The complaint alleged that the statute violated the First, Fifth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

       “The Court, therefore, further finds as a fact that the State of Mississippi is prosecuting the plaintiffs in the state court under said picketing statute in good faith, and is fully entitled under the law to do so to conclusion of such prosecution ....” — F. Supp., at —.

       We understand from the District Court’s opinion and conclusions of law that it did not dismiss the complaint on the ground that it thought it necessary to have the state courts construe the statute, but rather on the ground that having found the statute constitutional it dismissed in order for the criminal cases to be tried in the state courts. Moreover, whatever the reasons assigned for dismissal by the District Court, it is well established that an appellee in whose favor a judgment has been rendered is entitled to an affirmance on any proper ground.

       In an opinion joined by Mr. Justice Clark denying a petition for habeas corpus in similar circumstances, I stated:
      “This petition for habeas corpus is denied because the factual allegations fall far short of showing that there are not Mississippi state processes available by appeal or otherwise for Petitioner to challenge her state conviction, which processes would effectively protect her constitutional rights, particularly since any denial of such rights by the highest court of a State can be remedied by appropriate appellate proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U. S. Code, Sections 2241, 2254 and 1257.” Application of Wychoff, 6 Race Rel. L. Rep. 786, 794, discussed in Brown v. Rayfield, 320 F. 2d 96, 98-99 (C. A. 5th Cir.).

       “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U. S. C. § 2283 (1958 ed.).

       See Case v. Nebraska, ante, pp. 337, 340 (concurring opinions); Linkletter v. Walker, ante, p. 618.

       House Bill No. 546, Gen. Laws of Miss. 1964, c. 343.

       As the Court recognizes, the question whether §2283 bars an injunction in suits brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1958 ed.) is an open one; I think that the presence of that issue is a further reason why a per curiam remand is inappropriate.


text:
    CALIFORNIA v. HURST.
    No. 45.
    Decided June 7, 1965.

      Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, and Edsel W. Haws, Deputy Attorney General, for petitioner.
   Per Curiam.

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed. Linkletter v. Walker, ante, p. 618.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinion in Link-letter v. Walker, ante, at 640.


text:
    REDMOND v. VIRGINIA.
    No. 1082.
    Decided June 7, 1965.

      John Alvin Croghan forappellant.
   Per Curiam.

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


text:
    ASSOCIATED FOOD RETAILERS OF GREATER CHICAGO, INC., et al. v. JEWEL TEA CO., INC.
    No. 321.
    Decided June 7, 1965.

      Eugene Kart for petitioners.

      George B. Christensen, Fred H. Daugherty, Theodore A. Groenke and Samuel Weisbard for respondent.

      Solicitor General Cox for the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition.
   Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment below is reversed. Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea, ante, p. 676.

Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Goldberg concur in the judgment of the Court for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Goldberg's opinion in United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington and Meat Cutters v. Jewel Teg, ante, at 697.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Clark dissent.


text:
    FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION v. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP.
    No. 1024.
    Decided June 7, 1965.

      Solicitor General Cox, Richard A. Solomon, Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Robert L. Russell and Peter H. Schiff for petitioner in No. 1024.

      Herbert E. Squires and Joseph C. Bruno for petitioner in No. 1025.
    ,/. P. Hammond, William J. Grove and Carroll L. Gilliam for respondent in both cases.

      Together with No. 1025, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pan American Petroleum Cory., also on petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the same court.

   Per Curiam.

The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted and the judgment is reversed. United Gas Improvement Co. v. Continental Oil Co., and Federal Power Comm’n v. Man, ante, p. 392.


text:
    KNOWLES v. FLORIDA.
    No. 884,
    Misc.
    Decided June 7, 1965.
    Petitioner pro se.

      Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and George R. Georgieff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment dismissing the appeal is reversed. Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, 437-440. Cf. Lane v. Brown, 372 U. S. 477; Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.

Mr. Justice Stewart would deny certiorari.

Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent.


text:
    May 3, 1965.
    No. 1044,
    No. 1072,
    No. 1087,
    No. 1104,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Foster v. Boles, Warden; White v. Heinze, Warden; Stiltner v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent, et al.; and Kroeger v. California.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 1054,
    No. 1089,
    No. 1090,
    No. 1108,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Gonzales v. California; Edgerton v. North Carolina; Downer v. California; and Stevenson v. Chappell, Chairman, U. S. Board of Parole, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied. Treating the papers submitted as petitions for writs of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    No. 941,
    Misc.
    Skolnick v. Hastings et al., U. S. Circuit Judges.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and for other relief denied.


text:
    No. 806.
    Brown et al. v. Louisiana.

      Carl Rachlin, Robert F. Collins, Nils R. Douglas and Floyd McKissick for petitioners. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana, and Carroll Buck, First Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 824,
    Misc.
    Kent v. United States.

      Myron G. Ehrlich and Richard Arens for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of Elyce Zenoff Ferster et al. for leave to file a brief, as amici cuñae, granted. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of cer-tiorari granted. Case transferred to appellate docket.


text:
    No. 688.
    Kristovich, Public Administrator v. Shu Tong Ng.

      Harold W. Kennedy and George W. Wakefield for petitioner. Hiram W. Kwan for respondent. Solicitor General Cox filed a memorandum for the United States.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 982.
    Stirone v. United States.

      Lloyd F. Engle, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 984.
    Ferina v. United States.

      Walter A. Raymond and Kenneth C. West for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Marshall Tamor Golding for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 986.
    Rosenzweig v. United States.

      Joseph Henry Wolf and Paul Wyler for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 981.
    Whiteside v. Connecticut.

      Ralph H. Clark for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Err. Conn. Certiorari denied. Petitioner pro se.


text:
    No. 988.
    Allied Central Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

      Percy W. Phillips for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, Gilbert E. Andrews and Norman H. Wolfe for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 989.
    Shahadi v. United States.

      George P. Walker and Robert M. Taylor for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 991.
    Summerlin v. United States.

      Josiah Lyman and Sophie B. Lyman for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Daniel H. Benson for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 998.
    Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union 612 v. National Labor Relations Board.

      David Previant and L. N. D. Wells, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli, Norton J. Come and Allison W. Brown, Jr., for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 999.
    Godeny et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

      Robert M. Taylor for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer and I. Henry Kutz for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1005.
    McNeil v. Udall, Secretary of the Interior.

      Leif Erickson and Ellis Lyons for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Williams, Roger P. Marquis and Thos. L. McKevitt for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1007.
    Ferry et al. v. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, et al.

      Elmer C. Coker and Eugene Gressman for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Williams, Roger P. Marquis and S. Billingsley Hill for respondents. Darrell F. Smith, Attorney General of Arizona, and Dale R. Shumway, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Arizona, and James R. Holman for Gust, Rosenfeld & Divelbess et ah, as amici curiae, in support of the petition.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 971.
    Graham v. Pennsylvania Railroad et al.

      Melvin Hirshman and Earl H. Davis for petitioner. Thomas A. Flannery and Stephen A. Trimble for respondents.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Goldberg are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and the judgment reversed based on the dissenting opinion below of Judge J. Skelly Wright.


text:
    No. 481,
    Misc.
    Brady v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1013.
    Schwartz v. Tanner.

      Richard D. Haney for petitioner. Douglas G. Cole for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1001.
    Moynihan v. New York Central Railroad Co.

      Lawrence F. O’Donnell for petitioner. Timothy H. Donohue for respondent.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1014.
    Cities Service Oil Co. v. Arundel Corp.

      David C. Wood for petitioner. Christopher E. Heckman for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 686,
    Misc.
    Kern v. Rundle, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 860,
    Misc.
    Dean v. Green, Correctional Superintendent, et al.
    Petitioner pro se. William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, and Leo J. Conway, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 932,
    Misc.
    Ferguson v. Georgia.

      A. H. Leatherwood, Sr., for petitioner. Eugene Cook, Attorney General of Georgia, Albert Sidney Johnson., Assistant Attorney General, and Dan Winn, Solicitor General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 950,
    Misc.
    Armstrong v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 991,
    Misc.
    Williams v. MacBride, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 942,
    Misc.
    Ogletree v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 946,
    Misc.
    Dorton v. New York.
    Petitioner pro se. Frank S. Hogan and H. Richard Uviller for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 951,
    Misc.
    Paul v. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox for respondent.


text:
    No. 984,
    Misc.
    Rood v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1000,
    Misc.
    Kirby v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1003,
    Misc.
    Jackson v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1035,
    Misc.
    Goins v. Walker, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1069,
    Misc.
    Fink v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 21.
    No. 887.
    No. 504,
    Misc.
    Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co. et al., New York Central Railroad Co. v. Southern Railway Co., Ferrario v. Sigler, Warden,
   380 U. S. 448;

380 U. S. 954; and

380 U. S. 957. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    May 7, 1965.
    No. 1033.
    Minnesota ex rel. Branchaud v. Hedman, Sheriff.

      John S. Connolly for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    May 13, 1965.
    No. 1102,
    Misc.
    Jones v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Julia P. Cooper for the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    May 17, 1965.
    No. 919,
    October Term, 1961.
    Gondeck v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. (Certiorari denied, 370 U. S. 918; rehearing denied, 371 U. S. 856.) Respondents requested to file response to second petition for rehearing within 30 days.


text:
    No. 6.
    Henry v. Mississippi.

      Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General of Mississippi, and G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, on the motion.
   (379 U. S. 443; 380 U. S. 926.) Motion of respondent to retax costs denied.


text:
    No. 1015.
    United States v. Lewis Food Co., Inc.

      Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States on the motion.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Cal. Motion to transfer this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted and case remanded to that court pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 3731.


text:
    No. 1016.
    Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Flight Engineers’ International Association et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 1027.
    List v. Lerner dba Lerner & Co., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 1023,
    Misc.
    Stone v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox for respondent.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 1045,
    Misc.
    Chase v. Superior Court for Grays Harbor County, Washington, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 1123,
    No. 1143,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Fisher, alias Mueller v. Illinois; and Joseph v. Vitek, Warden.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 543,
    October Term, 1963.
    United States v. Maryland for the use of Meyer et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. (Certiorari denied, 375 U. S. 954.) Respondents requested to file response to petition for rehearing within 30 days.


text:
    No. 1152.
    Scott, Treasurer of Illinois, et al. v. Germano et al.

      Don H. Reuben and Howard J. Trienens for appellants. Lester Asher and Bernard Kleiman for Germano et al., and William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, for Kerner et al., appellees.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill. Motion of appellants for accelerated consideration of appeal granted and appellees allowed seven days to file responses to statement as to jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decison of this motion.


text:
    No. 608,
    Misc.
    Farrington v. Tahash, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Robert W. Mattson, Attorney General of Minnesota, and Charles E. Houston, Special Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 1162,
    No. 1166,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Gunter v. Kropp, Warden; and Dixon v. Wilson, Warden.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied. Treating the papers submitted as petitions for writs of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    No. 750.
    United States v. Ewell et al.

      Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Theodore George Gilinsky for the United States. Appellees pro se.

   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Ind. Motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 1081.
    No. 1083.
    No. 1084.
    No. 1085.
    No. 1086.
    United States v. Grinnell Corp. et al.; Grinnell Corp. v. United States; American District Telegraph Co. v. United States; Holmes Electric Protective Co. v. United States; and Automatic Fire Alarm Co. of Delaware v. United States.

      Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel and Gerald Radish for the United States in No. 1081. John F. Sonnett and Denis G. Mclnerney for appellant in No. 1083. Macdonald Flinn and Robert O. Donnelly for appellant in No. 1084. John W. Drye, Jr., Francis S. Bensel and Bud G. Holman for appellant in No. 1085. J. Francis Hayden for appellant in No. 1086.
   Appeals from D. C. R. I. Probable jurisdiction noted. Cases consolidated and a total of two hours allowed for oral argument.

Reported below: 236 F. Supp. 244.


text:
    No. 265.
    Albertson et al. v. Subversive Activities Control Board.

      John J. Abt and Joseph Forer for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Kevin T. Maroney and Lee B. Anderson for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.

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


text:
    No. 388,
    Misc.
    Marchese v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 620.
    Real Estate Investment Trust of America et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

      Henry Hixon Meyer and Charles D. Post for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, Wayne G. Barnett and Joseph Kovner for respondent.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 864.
    Irwin v. United States.

      Al Matthews for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Ronald L. Gainer for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 924.
    No. 925.
    No. 926.
    Allegretti v. United States; Darlak v. United States; and Falzone v. United States.

      Maurice J. Walsh and Anna R. Lavin for petitioner in No. 924. Petitioner pro se in No. 925. Daniel C. Ahem for petitioner in No. 926. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Theodore George Gilinsky for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 340 F. 2d 243, 254.


text:
    No. 946.
    AAA Con Drivers Exchange, Inc., et al. v. Interstate Commerce Commission.

      Harold Harper and Vincent P. Uihlein for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel, Donald L. Hardison, Robert W. Ginnane, Betty Jo Christian, Bernard A. Gould and Seymour Glanzer for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1022.
    Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen Insurance Department, Inc. v. Ellgass.

      Clifton Hildebrand for petitioner.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 927.
    Fore v. United States.

      Larry W. Morris and Bennett B. Patterson for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer and Joseph Kovner for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 933.
    Easter et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
    Petitioners pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer and Melva M. Graney for respondent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 978.
    B. Ray Robbins Co., Inc. v. Valley National Bank of Arizona.

      Albert Sidney Johnston, Jr., for petitioner. R. J. Ellis for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 997.
    No. 1011.
    Strollo v. United States; and Serman v. United States.

      Jack Wasserman and David Carliner for petitioner in No. 997. Dan W. Duffy and Sydney A. Hesse for petitioner in No. 1011. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Ronald L. Gainer for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1003.
    Boundy v. California.

      I. Glovin for petitioner.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1029.
    Pacific National Insurance Co. v. Transport Insurance Co.

      Edward Brodkey for petitioner. Dan M. Burge, Richard A. Reid, Donald E. Prevallet, James W. Steinsiek and James M. Gardner for respondent.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1008.
    Dinsio v. Ohio.

      Lawrence V. Cregan and Ben F. Kelly for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1018.
    A. G. V. Associates, Inc. v. Cross, Trustee in Bankruptcy.

      Bernard Finkel and Arthur Argiriou for petitioner. Jeremiah F. Cross, respondent, pro se.

   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1019.
    Smith v. United States.

      Charles P. Howard, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1021.
    Mims v. United States.

      Fleetwood M. McCoy for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Daniel H. Benson for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1031.
    Capitol Airways, Inc. v. Airline Pilots Association, International.

      Judson Harwood for petitioner. Cecil D. Branstetter and Harry Noe for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1036.
    Allan Herschell Co., Inc., et al. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. et al.

      Ralph L. Kaskell, Jr., for petitioners.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1037.
    Janaf, Inc. v. Orsinger.

      Winfred R. Mundle for petitioner. Joseph G. Dooley for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1038.
    Plaza Liquor Store, Inc. v. City of Atlanta.

      Robert L. Mitchell for petitioner. Henry L. Bowden, Martin McFarland and Lewis R. Slaton for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1051.
    District Council of Painters No. 48, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America v. National Labor Relations Board.

      Herbert M. Ansell for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1064.
    Calef v. Rosenberg, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for respondents.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 814.
    Landon v. Northern Natural Gas Co.

      Byron M. Gray and William S. Richardson for petitioner. F. Vinson Roach and Ralph W. Oman for respondent. Solicitor General Cox, Richard A. Solomon, Howard E. Wahrenbrock and Josephine H. Klein for the Federal Power Commission, as amicus curiae.

   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 938.
    Monolith Portland Cement Co. v. Riddell, District Director of Internal Revenue.

      Joseph T. Enright, Norman Elliott and William A. Sutherland for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1058.
    Harrington v. Texaco, Inc.
    Petitioner pro se. William, Alan Mudgett and Jack W. Flock for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 834.
    Zizzo et al. v. United States.

      Maurice J. Walsh and Edward J. Calihan, Jr., for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Sidney M. Glazer for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 1006.
    T. B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu et al.

      Gustave B. Garfield for petitioner. Leonard J. Linden for Eliscu, and Lewis A. Dreyer for Ross Jungnickel, Inc., respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1028.
    Jones et al. v. United States.

      Guy Johnson for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Philip R. Monahan for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition for certiorari granted. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 440,
    Misc.
    Spencer v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 749,
    Misc.
    Romanello v. Florida.

      A. K.Black for petitioner. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and James T. Carlisle, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 692,
    Misc.
    Peoples v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Julia P. Cooper for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 750,
    Misc.
    Peacock v. Florida.

      A. K. Black for petitioner. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and James T. Carlisle, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 755,
    Misc.
    Lepiscopo v. MacGrath.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Beatrice Rosenberg for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 791,
    Misc.
    Losieau v. Sigler, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General of Nebraska, and Melvin Kent Kammerlohr, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 802,
    Misc.
    Smith v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Daniel H. Benson for the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 865,
    Misc.
    Sullivan v. Taylor, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Doar and Harold H. Greene for respondent.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 875,
    Misc.
    Tucker v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 869,
    Misc.
    Cook v. Maxwell, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. William, B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, and Leo J. Conway, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 889,
    Misc.
    Leyde v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
    Petitioner pro se. John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Stephen C. Way and Paul J. Murphy, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Super. Ct. Wash., Walla Walla County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 891,
    Misc.
    Haines v. Randolph, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Edward A. Berman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 954,
    Misc.
    Bjornsen v. New York.
    Petitioner pro se. Frank S. Hogan and H. Richard Uviller for respondent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 961,
    Misc.
    Dunford v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 964,
    Misc.
    Boruski v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox and Philip A. Loomis, Jr., for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 977,
    Misc.
    Matysek v. United States.

      Morris Lavine for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Philip R. Monahan for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 986,
    Misc.
    Basha v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 999,
    Misc.
    Middleton v. Fay, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1001,
    Misc.
    Reeves v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1005,
    Misc.
    Loper v. Connally, Governor of Texas, et al.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1012,
    Misc.
    Wallace v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1017,
    Misc.
    Dutton v. Warden, Tennessee Prison.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1028,
    Misc.
    Ellis v. Supreme Court of California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Charles E. Corker, Assistant Attorney General, and N. B. Peek and Robert H. O’Brien, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1030,
    Misc.
    Rosario v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1032,
    Misc.
    Gallegos v. Cox, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1036,
    Misc.
    Justus v. New Mexico.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1034,
    Misc.
    Kerns v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Ronald L. Gainer for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1039,
    Misc.
    Watts v. Peyton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied


text:
    No. 1041,
    Misc.
    Parker v. Maxwell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1042,
    Misc.
    Guerrieri v. Maxwell, Warden, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1049,
    Misc.
    Ballay v. Tinsley, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, and James W. Creamer, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1050,
    Misc.
    Santos v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1081,
    Misc.
    Greene v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1092,
    Misc.
    Borbon v. Clerk, Superior Court, County of Kings, Hanford, California, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1111,
    Misc.
    Konigsberg v. Koson, City Hospital Warden.

      Frances Kahn for petitioner.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1131,
    Misc.
    Lane v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 198,
    Misc.
    Kling v. New York.

      John Dwight Evans, Jr., and Leon B. Polsky for petitioner.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 298,
    Misc.
    Smith v. New York.

      Leon B. Polsky for petitioner.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 785,
    Misc.
    Lewis v. United States.

      Henry Lincoln Johnson, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 665,
    Misc.
    Austin v. Florida.
    Petitioner pro se. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and James G. Mahomer, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied without prejudice to an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the appropriate United States District Court.


text:
    No. 982,
    Misc.
    Evans v. Katzenbach, Attorney General, et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox for respondents.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 113.
    No. 193.
    No. 865.
    No. 897.
    No. 886,
    No. 893,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Thomas et ux. v. United States, Romano et al. v. United States, Patsis, aka Nickas v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Casida et al. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, et al., James v. Anderson, Jail Superintendent, et al., Graves v. Texas,
   379 U. S. 819;

380 U. S. 942;

380 U. S. 952;

380 U. S. 955;

380 U. S. 966; and

380 U. S. 967. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 64.
    Swain v. Alabama,
   380 U. S. 202. Motion of the American Civil Liberties Union for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, in support of rehearing, granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 1077,
    Misc.
    Vida v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    May 18, 1965.
    No. 1155,
    Misc.
    Earnshaw v. Anderson, Jail Superintendent.
    Petitioner pro se. Chester H. Gray, Milton D. Korman, Hubert B. Pair and John R. Hess for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Petition for writ of

certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    May 19, 1965.
    No. 1051,
    Misc.
    McCarty v. Anderson, Jail Superintendent.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 1173,
    Misc.
    Schlette v. Supreme Court of California.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    May 24, 1965.
    No. 1140,
    Misc.
    In re Disbarment of Hammett.
   It having been reported to the Court that Bernard J. Hammett of Silver Spring, State of Maryland, has been disbarred from the practice of the law by judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, duly entered on the 12th day of March, 1965, and this Court by order of March 29, 1965., having-suspended the said Bernard J. Hammett from the practice of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred;

And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued and served upon the respondent, and that the time within which to file a return to the rule has expired;

It is ordered that the said Bernard J. Hammett be, and he is hereby, disbarred and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.


text:
    No. 1163,
    Misc.
    Henig et al. v. Gesregan.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 1167,
    Misc.
    Lishey v. California et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    No. 831.
    Giaccio v. Pennsylvania.

      Peter Hearn, James C. N. Paul and Paul J. Mishkin for appellant. Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Graeme Murdock, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 819.
    Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114, et al.

      Donald F. Welday for petitioner. Harold A. Cranefield for respondents. Solicitor General Cox, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come filed a memorandum for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 877.
    Tehan, Sheriff v. Shott.

      Melvin G. Rueger, Calvin W. Prem and Harry C. Schoettmer for petitioner. Thurman Arnold, James G. Andrews, Jr., and John A. Lloyd, Jr., for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted. The parties are requested to brief and argue the question of the retroactivity of the doctrine announced in Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents, being of the view that the case should be remanded to the District Court for a finding on allegation that the respondent at the trial waived any objection to the comment made on his failure to testify.

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


text:
    No. 832.
    Avgikos v. Louisiana.

      Chester E. Wallace for petitioner. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana, and M. E. Culligan and Harry J. Kron, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. La. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 972.
    Holland Furnace Co. v. Schnackenberg, U. S. Circuit Judge, et al.

      Charles Trynin for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, E. K. Elkins and Miles J. Brown for respondents.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1026.
    No. 1035.
    Ahtanum Irrigation District et al. v. United States; and United States v. Ahtanum Irrigation District et al.

      Fred C. Palmer, John Gavin, Northcutt Ely and Jerome C. Muys for Ahtanum Irrigation District et al., and John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Charles B. Roe, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Washington, petitioners in No. 1026. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Williams, Roger P. Marquis and Edmund B. Clark for the United States in both cases. Charles B. Roe, Jr., Assistant Attorney General of Washington, for the State of Washington, respondent in No. 1035.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 330 F. 2d 897; 338 F. 2d 307.


text:
    No. 1042.
    Allied Air Freight, Inc., et al. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., et al.

      Milton Horowitz for petitioners. William L. Lynch and George Weisz for respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1041.
    Zimmerman v. Lehmann, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

      Maurice J. Walsh and Anna R. Lavin for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1045.
    Leighton v. Paramount Pictures Corp. et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Leonard Kaufman and Whitney North Seymour, Jr., for respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1048.
    Poresky v. Wahlstrom, Judge, et al.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1049.
    Oman Construction Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.

      Cecil Sims for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli, Norton J. Come and Melvin Pollack for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1052.
    Mooney v. Stainless, Inc., et al.

      Irving R. M. Panzer for petitioner. Ben F. McAuley for respondents.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1056.
    Tjonaman v. A/S Glittre et al.

      Jacob Rassner for petitioner. David P. H. Watson and James M. Estabrook for respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1065.
    Stirone v. Hurtt, Trustee in Bankruptcy.

      Lloyd F. Engle, Jr., for petitioner. Carl E. Glock for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1069.
    Skolnick v. Martin et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Walter T. Fisher for respondent Martin.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1094.
    Atwood et al. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.

      David Bland for petitioners. Walter B. Morgan for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1100.
    Southwestern Life Insurance Co. et al. v. Pan American Petroleum Corp. et al.

      James P. Swift for petitioners. Chas. F. Potter and Roy L. Merrill for respondents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1046.
    Thompson v. United States.

      L. J. Cushman for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Julia P. Cooper for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Earl N. Stokes to be added as party petitioner denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 657,
    Misc.
    Gray v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 730,
    Misc.
    Valcarcel v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Doar and Harold H. Greene for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 778,
    Misc.
    O’Callahan v. Attorney General et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Doar and Harold H. Greene for respondents.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 912,
    Misc.
    Salinas v. Cox, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Boston E. Witt, Attorney General of New Mexico, and Thomas A. Donnelly and Roy G. Hill, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 947,
    Misc.
    Wilson v. Anderson, Jail Superintendent.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Doar and Harold H. Greene for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 960,
    Misc.
    Hodge v. Markley, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Doar and Harold H. Greene for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 998,
    Misc.
    Wells v. United States.

      Chester C. Shore for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1040,
    Misc.
    Carter v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1046,
    Misc.
    Carrington v. Civil Aeronautics Board et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum, Joseph B. Goldman, O. D. Ozment and Robert L. Toomey for respondents.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1093,
    Misc.
    Walker v. Wilson, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1052,
    Misc.
    Cunningham v. Myers, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1058,
    Misc.
    Halyshyn v. United States.

      James J. Laughlin for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    Nos. 1078, and 1079,
    Misc.,
    Misc.
    Goins v. Tennessee.
    Petitioner pro se. George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Edgar P. Calhoun, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent in No. 1078, Mise. George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Thomas E. Fox, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent in No. 1079, Mise.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1086,
    Misc.
    Boruski v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox and Philip A. Loomis, Jr., for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1094,
    Misc.
    Jefferson v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1095,
    Misc.
    Bronaugh v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1096,
    Misc.
    Seymour v. Wilkins, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1119,
    Misc.
    Weinreich v. Warden, Missouri Penitentiary.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1097,
    Misc.
    Firo v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1100,
    Misc.
    Castle v. United States.

      Alan Y. Naftaliri for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1105,
    Misc.
    Lindenmuth v. Prothonotary, Chester County, Pennsylvania.
   Ct. Common Pleas, Pa., Chester County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1113,
    Misc.
    Linares v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Ronald L. Gainer for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1125,
    Misc.
    Maddock v. Lewis et al.

      Alan C. Kohn for petitioner. Harry H. Craig for Lewis et al., and John S. Marsalek for Anheuser-Busch, Inc., respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1137,
    Misc.
    Wood v. Maine et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Richard J. Dubord, Attorney General of Maine, and John W. Benoit, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1152,
    Misc.
    Glinton v. Denno, Warden.

      James T. Sherwin for petitioner. Frank S. Hogan, H. Richard Uviller and Michael Juviler for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1118,
    Misc.
    Gunston v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1127,
    Misc.
    Hackathorn v. Texas.

      Fred S. Abney and Robert Power for petitioner. Henry Wade for respondent.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 580,
    Misc.
    Hall v. Pinto, Prison Superintendent.
    Petitioner pro se. Guy W. Calissi for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 784.
    No. 900,
    No. 940,
    No. 1000,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Batten v. United States, Lemons v. United States, Streeter v. Illinois, Kirby v. United States,
   380 U. S. 912;

380 U. S. 985;

380 U. S. 985; and

ante, p. 906. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 1244,
    Misc.
    Purcell v. Court of Appeals of Alabama.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    May 26, 1965.
    No. 1150.
    Troy Co. v. Products Research Co.

      John B. Young for petitioner.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    June 1, 1965.
    No. 13,
    Original.
    Texas v. New Jersey et al.

      Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, Alan B. Handler, First Assistant Attorney General, and Charles J. Kehoe, Deputy Attorney General, on the motion.
   (379 U. S. 674, 380 II. S. 518.) Motion for clarification and modification of opinion denied.


text:
    No. 780.
    Rosenblatt v. Baer.

      Conrad E. Snow on the motion.
   Sup. Ct. N. H. (Certiorari granted, 380 U. S. 941.) Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis denied. It is ordered that the case be heard on the typewritten record.


text:
    No. 906.
    United States v. Adams et al.

      John A. Reilly on the motion.
   Ct. Cl. (Certiorari granted, 380 U. S. 949.) Further consideration of motion of respondents to dismiss writ of certiorari postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits.


text:
    No. 1190,
    No. 1199,
    No. 1229,
    No. 1237,
    No. 1259,
    No. 1278,
    No. 1288,
    No. 1295,
    No. 1296,
    No. 1301,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Schruder v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent, et al.; Caruth v. Keller, District Attorney of San Diego County, California; Dorsey v. Kearney, Warden; Stewart v. Michigan et al.; Draper v. Washington et al.; Hernandez v. Eyman, Warden; Horner v. Florida; Schwartz v. Kansas; Shepherd v. Beto, Corrections Director, et al.; and Brown v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 1224,
    No. 1270,
    No. 1294,
    No. 1302,
    No. 1330,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Cottom v. California et al.; Johnson v. Burke, Warden; Copestick v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent; Hunter v. Prasse, Correctional Commissioner, et al.; and Selz v. California.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied. Treating the papers submitted as petitions for writs of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    No. 1134,
    No. 1227,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Goodson v. United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; and Ex Parte Guy.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 968,
    Misc.
    Walker v. Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.

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


text:
    No. 1147,
    Misc.
    Ray v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and for other relief denied.


text:
    No. 1170,
    Misc.
    Biggs v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Illinois et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 1023.
    United States v. Guest et al.

      Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Doar, Louis F. Claiborne, Harold H. Greene and Howard A. Glickstein for the United States. Charles J. Bloch for appellee Lackey.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Ga. Further consideration of question of jurisdiction postponed to hearing of case on merits.


text:
    No. 992.
    Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission et al.

      William J. Lippman and Amy Scupi for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Irwin A. Seibel, Donald L. Hardison, Milan C. Miskovsky and Walter H. Mayo III for the Federal Maritime Commission et al., and Odell Kominers for Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S. A., respondents.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 1157.
    No. 1158.
    Holt et al. v. Alleghany Corp. et al.; and Holt et al. v. Kirby et al.

      Stuart N. Updike for petitioners. Mark F. Hughes and Allan F. Conwill for Alleghany Corp., and Walter R. Mansfield for Kirby et al., respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted. Cases consolidated and a total of two hours allotted for oral argument.

Reported below: No. 1157, 344 F. 2d 571; No. 1158, 340 F. 2d 311.


text:
    No. 246.
    National Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. United States.

      Jacquin D. Bierman for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1047.
    Power Authority of New York v. Federal Power Commission.

      Thomas F. Moore, Jr., and Stephen D. Finale for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Richard A. Solomon, Howard E. Wahrenbrock and Joseph Hobbs for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 815.
    Comisaria General de Abastecimientos y Transportes v. Victory Transport Inc.

      Arthur M. Becker and Harry Wallach for petitioner. Norman M. Barron for respondent. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, Morton Hollander and John C. Eldridge for the United States, as amicus curiae.

   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 918.
    Sunset Realty Corp. v. Tax Assessor of Lee County, Florida, et al.

      Thomas P. Ford and Arthur Norman Field for petitioner. Frank A. Pavese for respondents.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 968.
    Simmons v. Washington.
    Petitioner pro se. Richard F. Bros for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1009.
    Keiser v. Hartman et al.

      Herman A. Adler for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox for respondents.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1017.
    Interlake Steamship Co. v. Nielsen et al.

      Thomas V. Koykka, McAlister Marshall and Robert B. Preston for petitioner. J. Harold Traverse for Nielsen, and Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, Morton Hollander and David L. Rose for O’Hearne, respondents.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1040.
    Baxter v. United States.

      John F. Dugger for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1039.
    Krum v. Michigan.

      Charles C. Wickett and Andrew F. Oeh-mann for petitioner. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and James R. Ramsey, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1050.
    Beh v. City of West Des Moines.

      David W. Belin for petitioner. Jack R. Hall for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1053.
    Randall et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

      William C. Jordan for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, Melva M. Graney and David I. Granger for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1055.
    Cox, U. S. District Judge v. Hauberg, U. S. Attorney, et al.

      Earl T. Thomas, L. Arnold Pyle and Garner W. Green, Sr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, Morton Hollander and David L. Rose for respondents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1059.
    Laurence v. United States.

      Joseph J. Lyman and Jacob A. Stein for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1074.
    McGregor v. Virginia.

      Edward Stehl III and Quinlan H. Hancock for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1060.
    District of Columbia for the Use and Benefit of Capital Lighting & Supply Inc. v. Merando Inc. et al.

      Irwin S. Landau and I. Irwin Bolotin for petitioner.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1061.
    Grosh et al. v. United States.

      E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., and Charles W. Halleck for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Sidney M. Glazer for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1063.
    Espey v. Laughlin.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1066.
    Poster Exchange, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp. et al.

      Francis T. Anderson for petitioner. Robert S. Sams for Paramount Film Distributing Corp., et ah, and Louis Nizer for National Screen Service Corp., respondents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1067.
    W. M. R. Watch Case Corp. et al. v. Federal Trade Commission.

      B. Paul Noble for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum, Jerry Pruzansky, James Mcl. Henderson and Lester Klaus for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1068.
    I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co. v. City of Philadelphia et al.

      Philip Price and Raymond W. Midgett, Jr., for petitioner. Harold E. Kohn and Aaron M. Fine for City of Philadelphia et al., respondents.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1071.
    Shupe v. New York Central System.

      John J. Milano for petitioner. George B. Christensen for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1075.
    Brucker v. United States.

      T. N. Petersen and Eugene Gressman for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, Morton Hollander and David L. Rose for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1076.
    Deane Hill Country Club, Inc., et al. v. United States.

      William Earl Badgett for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Marshall Tamor Golding for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1012.
    California v. Dorado.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Arlo E. Smith, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Albert W. Harris, Jr., and Michael R. Marrón, Deputy Attorneys General, for petitioner. William Klein for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1078.
    Heininger v. Department of Registration & Education of Illinois et al.

      Robert A. Sprecher for petitioner. William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Richard A. Michael and Edward A. Berman, Assistant Attorneys General, for Department of Registration & Education of Illinois et al., and Owen Rail for Stephens, respondents.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1077.
    Levy v. New York.

      Samuel Lawrence Brennglass for petitioner. Frank S. Hogan and H. Richard Uviller for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1079.
    Western Radio Corp. et al. v. Federal Trade Commission.

      Charles Rowan for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel, James Mcl. Henderson and Charles C. Moore, Jr., for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1080.
    Lukasik v. United States.

      Anna R. Lavin and Edward J. Calihan, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1088.
    Lombardozzi et al. v. United States.

      William Sonenshine for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Sidney M. Glazer for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1095.
    Quagliato et al. v. United States.

      David H. Finkle for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 790,
    Misc.
    Stevenson v. Wilkins, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1106.
    Ratke et al. v. United States.

      Milton A. Bass and Solomon H. Friend for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1156.
    United States for the Use and Benefit of Robertson Lumber Co. v. Continental Casualty Co. et al.

      Harold D. Shaft for petitioner. Thomas L. Degnan for respondents.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 715,
    Misc.
    Chase et al. v. McCain et al.

      Arthur Kinoy, William M. Kunstler, Samuel W. Tucker, J. L. Williams and Harry I. Wood for petitioners. Rutledge C. Clement and John W. Carter for respondents.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 845,
    Misc.
    Schuman 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. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 927,
    Misc.
    Cook v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 993,
    Misc.
    Hairston v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1047,
    Misc.
    Goldberg v. Office Employes International Union, Local 153, et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 967,
    Misc.
    Barkan v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 992,
    Misc.
    Conlan v. Haskins, Correctional Superintendent.

      Walter S. Haffner for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 995,
    Misc.
    Feyrer v. Boldt, U. S. District Judge, et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Doar and Harold H. Greene for respondents..
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 997,
    Misc.
    Murray et al. v. Maryland.

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


text:
    No. 1009,
    Misc.
    Di Palermo v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Philip R. Monahan for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1048,
    Misc.
    Sanchez v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.