text:
    No. 1569.
    Fibreboard Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C: A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 1583.
    V. E. B. Carl Zeiss, Jena, et al. v. Carl Zeiss Stiftung et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1587.
    Stein v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1588.
    Sears, Roebuck & Co. et al. v. Solien, Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1591.
    Ohio v. Griffith.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1593.
    Societe Industries Mechaniques Allies v. Lewis, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1594.
    Marie Phillips, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1595.
    Stevens et al. v. Buckley et al.
   Ct. App.. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1597.
    Continental Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1602.
    Kinloch v. News & Observer Publishing Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiolari denied.


text:
    No. 1603.
    Strong et al. v. General Electric Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1611.
    Smothers v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1618.
    Pastorelle v. Collins et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1638.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1652.
    Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York et al. v. National Bank of Commerce in New Orleans.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1661.
    Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. Olympia Brewing Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5791.
    Brown v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6562.
    No. 6710.
    Hall v. United States; and James et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 432 F. 2d 303.


text:
    No. 6566.
    Thomas v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6610.
    Gerberding v. Swenson, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6622.
    Kelley v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6612.
    Horton v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6656.
    Hightower v. Smith, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6667.
    Peterson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6672.
    Dennis v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6673.
    Branion v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6674.
    English v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6681.
    Brooks v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6690.
    Reliford v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6694.
    Carnes v. Craven, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6731.
    Floyd v. Neil.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6743.
    Fields v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6802.
    McCubbins v. Keenan et al.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6831.
    Arenado v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6832.
    Hodges et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6857.
    Castle v. Moseley, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6868.
    Cohen v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6874.
    Ethington v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6875.
    Summerville v. Cook, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6881.
    LoCicero et al. v. LaVallee, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6882.
    Widziewicz v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6883.
    Hardin v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6886.
    Flowers v. Haskins, Correctional Superintendent.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6887.
    Carter v. California Adult Authority.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6889.
    Burkes v. Callion et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6888.
    Collins v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6890.
    Randolph et al. v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6891.
    Simms v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6893.
    Mastracchio v. Howard, Warden.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6894.
    Toth v. Russell, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6896.
    Foreman v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6902.
    Hite v. Moynahan, Chief Judge, U. S. District Court.
   C, A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6903.
    Rogers v. Picard, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6905.
    Varrella v. Varrella.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6909.
    Wolff v. Buchkoe, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6917.
    Billingsley et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir, Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1589.
    Modla v. Chrysler Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion to dispense, with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6926.
    Garr v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6928.
    Campbell v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6969.
    Hammond v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 651.
    Florida Power Corp. v. Gainesville Utilities Department et al.; and Florida Power Corp. v. Federal Power Commission.
    No. 652.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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

Reported below: 425 F. 2d 1196.


text:
    No. 1623.
    Todd v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1309.
    Anckaitis, Secretary of Transportation of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Miller.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1584.
    Carlson v. City of Tallahassee.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6219.
    Houston v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6390.
    Lloyd v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1610.
    Davis v. Royal-Globe Insurance Companies et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6550.
    Deans v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1601.
    Lipkin v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1604.
    Franklin v. Grossinger Motor Sales, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1613.
    Gottesman et al. v. General Motors Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1634.
    Delaware & Hudson Railway Co. et al. v. United Transportation Union.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1605.
    Black v. Sheraton Corporation of America et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6935.
    Hyler et al. v. Reynolds Metals Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 281.
    No. 349.
    No. 1216.
    No. 1316.
    No. 1380.
    No. 1390.
    No. 1439.
    No. 1443.
    No. 6199.
    No. 6688.
    Swann et al. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al. v. Swann et al., Sid W. Richardson Foundation v. United States, 2,606.84 Acres of Land in Tarrant County, Texas v. United States, Mather Construction Co. et al. v. Continental Casualty Co. et al., Pruett v. Texas, Ethicon, Inc. v. Handgards, Inc., et al., Chambers et al. v. United States, Spieler v. United States, Ginsburg v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
   402 U. S. 1;

402 U. S. 1 ;

401 U. S. 1009;

402 U. S. 916;

402 U. S. 907;

402 U. S. 902;

402 U. S. 929;

402 U. S. 944;

402 U. S. 950; and

402 U. S, 976. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 345.
    United States v. Freed et al.,
   401 U. S. 601. Motion for leave to file, petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 1719.
    Lamar Life Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Application for stay of enforcement of orders of the Federal Communications Commission presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.


text:
    No. 1773.
    Scafati, Correctional Superintendent v. Fisher.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Application for stay of order of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, dated June 4, 1971, presented to Mr. Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court, granted by the Court pending further order.


text:
    June 14, 1971
    No. 803.
    Gunderson et al. v. Adams, Secretary of State of Florida, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. Fla.

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


text:
    No. 887.
    Brenner et al. v. School District of Kansas City, Missouri, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. W. D. Mo. Gordon v. Lance, ante, p. 1.

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


text:
    No. 1662.
    School District of the Township of Shaler et al. v. Interim Operating Committee of Administrative Unit No. 5 et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. W. D. Pa.


text:
    No. 52.
    No. 53.
    Whitcomb, Governor of Indiana v. Chavis et al.; and Ruckelshaus et al. v. Chavis et al.
   Appeals from D. C. S. D. Ind. dismissed. Gunn v. University Committee, 399 U. S. 383 (1970), Whitcomb v. Chavis, ante, p. 124.

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

Reported below: 305 F. Supp. 1364.


text:
    No. 148.
    Dodds v. Johansen, City Clerk of Minneapolis, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Minn, dismissed. Gunn v. University Committee, 399 U. S. 383 (1970).

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


text:
    No. 523.
    Bogert et al. v. Kinzer, Clerk of City of Pocatello, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Idaho dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Gordon v. Lance, ante, p. 1.

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


text:
    No. 6947.
    Strader v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Kan. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6948.
    Brewster v. Lake Superior District Power Co.
   Appeal from C. A. 7th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken'as a petition for Writ of certiorari, cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 105.
    Adams et al. v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida et al.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Fla. Judgment vacated and case remanded' for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decision in Connell v. Higginbotham, ante, p. 207.

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


text:
    No. 147.
    Rimarcik v. Johansen, City Clerk of Minneapolis, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Minn. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decision in Gordon v. Lance, ante, p. 1.

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


text:
    No. 1645.
    Orleans Parish Board of Supervisors of Elections et al. v. Dundee.
   Appeal from C. A. 5th Cir. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of amendments to Sections 1909, 1931, and 1995 of Title 47 of Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana by Act No. 232 on July 2, 1970.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents from this action of the Court.


text:
    No. 641.
    Mihaly et al. v. Westbrook et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for reconsideration in light of this' Court’s decision in Gordon v. Lance, ante, p. 1.

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


text:
    No. 1656.
    Polsky v. Wetherill et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded pursuant to recommendation of the Solicitor General in the Memorandum for the United States.


text:
    No. 6578.
    Colton v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decisions in United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U. S. 715 (1970), and Leary v. United States, 395 U. S. 6 (1969).


text:
    No. 958.
    Federal Power Commission v. Florida Power & Light Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 907.] Motion of American Public Power Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.

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


text:
    No. 1184.
    No. 1231.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Plasterers’ Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ International Assn., AFL-CIO, et al.; and Texas State Tile & Terrazzo Co., Inc., et al. v. Plasterers’ Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ International Assn., AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 973.] Motions of Associated General Con-' tractors of America et al., Scientific Apparatus Makers Assn., and Laborers’ International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, for leave to file briefs as amici curiae, granted.


text:
    No. 316.
    Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn., Inc., et al. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of the City of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion to advance cause for immediate consideration denied.


text:
    No. 6060.
    Fuentes et al. v. Shevin, Attorney General of Florida, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Fla. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 401 U. S. 906.] Motion to dispense with printing amicus curiae brief of National Legal Aid & Defender Assn. granted.


text:
    No. 774.
    Cole, State Hospital Superintendent, et al. v. Richardson.
   Appeal from D. C. Mass. Probable jurisdiction noted.

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


text:
    No. 952.
    Perry et al. v. Sindermann.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of National Education Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 5983.
    Papachristou et al. v. City of Jacksonville.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 6294.
    Smith et al. v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and cer-tiorari granted.


text:
    No. 1030.
    Del Nobile v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N.-J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1362.
    Chabert et al. v. City of Westwego et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1375.
    Irving v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1586.
    Marathon Oil Co. et al. v. Bruce et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1608.
    Luna et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1609.
    Grabowski, aka Grabinski v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1615.
    Van Riper v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1619.
    Waterhouse et al. v. Mitchell, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1621.
    Barger v. Washington.
   Super. Ct. Wash., Franklin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1627.
    Davern v. Civil Service Commission of the City of Chicago et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1628.
    Novelart Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1632.
    Hughes Tool Co. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. .


text:
    No. 1629.
    Kotakes v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1633.
    Village of Chicago Ridge v. Gardner.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1636.
    Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers et al. v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1639.
    Tucker v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1642.
    Karger v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1644.
    Milne v. Vermont.
   Sup. Ct. Vt. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1648.
    Ragsdale v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1653.
    Hayes v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1668.
    American Beef Packers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1673.
    Webb v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1676.
    Gambocz v. Ellmyer et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6611.
    Tarallo, aka Taro v. LaVallee, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6523.
    Darnell v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6583.
    Natoli v. Estate of Hamilton.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6680.
    Odell v. Cady, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6684.
    Van Hook v. Lloyd, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6707.
    Pietsch v. President of the United States et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6736.
    McBride v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6782.
    Lanier v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6790.
    Grasso v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6817.
    Jack v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6836.
    Shkukani v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6862.
    Timmons v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6867.
    Swift v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6899.
    Carter v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6922.
    Trammell v. Deegan, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6914.
    Moss v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6924.
    Lane et al. v. Pate, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6931.
    White v. Cardwell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6932.
    Lane v. Wingo, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6937.
    Setzler v. Florida.
   Dist: Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6939.
    Valdez v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6941.
    Weis v. Mancusi, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6943.
    Benningfield v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6949.
    Martin v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6951.
    Hillery v. Nelson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6953.
    Rodriguez v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 648.
    Barnes v. A. S. Abell Co.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6954.
    Matthews v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6955.
    Nash v. Hess Oil & Chemical Corp. et al.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6997.
    Fernandez v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 730.
    Westbrook et al. v. Mihaly et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1556.
    Whitmore v. Tarr, National Director, Selective Service System, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1625.
    Gregory et al. v. Tarr, National Director, Selective Service System, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6787.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6957.
    Cowling v. Craven, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1612.
    Poloron Products, Inc. v. Bela Seating Co., Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1622.
    No. 1708.
    No. 1716.
    WHDH, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.; Charles River Civic Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.; and Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Reported below: 143 U. S. App. D. C. 383, 444 F. 2d 841. [For earlier order herein, see 402 U. S. 1007.]


text:
    No. 1643.
    Brando v. Coffman et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1746.
    National Gypsum Co. et al. v. United States Gypsum Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6880.
    Marin v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6908.
    Theriault v. Harris, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 481,
    Misc.,
    October Term, 1964.
    Brady v. Ohio.
   381 U. S. 904, 957. Motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. — .
    No. 68.
    No. 133.
    No. 141.
    No. 142.
    No. 145.
    No. 149.
    No. 151.
    No. 284.
    No. 356.
    No. 534.
    No. 1475.
    No. 6067.
    No. 6535.
    No. 6822.
    Connor et al. v. Johnson et al., Deming v. United States, United States v. Thirty-seven (37) Photographs (Luros, Claimant), Brossard v. United States, Harris v. United States, Flesch v. United States, Dillon v. United States, Posner v. United States, Bender v. United States, Evans v. United States, United States v. Reidel, Fuhrman, Administratrix, et al. v. United States Steel Corp. et al., Tyczkowski v. Pennsylvania, Mitchell v. United States, Nelson v. Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary,
   402 U. S. 690;

402 U. S. 949;

402 U. S. 363;

402 U. S. 981;

402 U. S. 981;

402 U. S. 982;

402 U. S. 982;

402 U. S. 982;

402 U. S. 982;

402 U. S. 987;

402 U. S. 351;

402 U. S. 987;

400 U. S. 1022;

402 U. S. 946 ; and

402 U. S. 997; Petitions for. rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 1334.
    Silverman v. United States,
   402 U. S. 953. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 5219.
    No. 6653.
    Shah v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Edmondson v. United States,
   400 U. S. 837; and 402 U. S. 931, Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing deified.


text:
    No. 6848.
    Ruderer v. Regan, U. S. District Judge,
   402 U. S. 1008. Petition, for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 6519.
    Brady v. Ohio,
   402 U. S. 989. Petition for rehearing and other relief denied.


text:
    June 15, 1971
    No. 1009.
    United States v. Unicorn Enterprises, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 907.] Writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    June 21, 1971
    No. 1341.
    Jackson et al. v. Ogilvie, Governor of Illinois, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill.

[For earlier orders herein, see, e. g., 401 U. S. 952.]


text:
    No. 1360.
    Beller et al. v. Askew, Governor of Florida, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. Fla.


text:
    No. 122.
    Fucini v. Illinois.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. dismissed for want of substantial, federal question.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 724.
    Alhambra City School District of Los Angeles County et al. v. Mize et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Cal. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1664.
    Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. California.
   Appeal from App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal,, Coupty of Riverside, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ, of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 953.
    D. v. County of Onondaga.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition .for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 1598.
    Hoene et al. v. Jamieson, State Commissioner of Highways of Minnesota, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 5078.
    In re Johnson.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Md. Motion of appellant for leave -to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 5667.
    DeBacker v. Sigler.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Neb. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Black a.nd Mr. Justice Douglas are of the.opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 1383.
    United States v. B & H Dist. Corp. et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Wisi Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decisions in United States v. Reidel, 402 U. S. 351, and United States v. Thirty-seven (37) Photographs, 402 U. S. 363.


text:
    No. 1387.
    Van Hoomissen et al. v. Hayse et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Ore. Judgment' vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decisions in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37; and Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66.

Mr. Justice Douglas, is of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.


text:
    No. 6364.
    Gonzales et al. v. Shea, Director, Colorado Department of Social Services, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Colo. Motion of appellants for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decision in Graham v. Richardson, and Sailer v. Leger, ante, p. 365.


text:
    No 761.
    Mize et al. v. Alhambra City School District of Los Angeles County et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for reconsideration in' light of this Court’s decision in Gordon v. Lance, ante, p. 1.


text:
    No. 1305.
    Baines v. City of Birmingham.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decision in Cohen v. California, ante, p. 15.


text:
    No. 5687.
    Tate v. Blackwell, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court's decision in Griffin v. Breckenridge, ante, p. 88.


text:
    No. —.
    Dixon v. Oregon.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Application for stay and continuance of bail, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. —.
    Connor et al. v. Johnson et al.,
   402 U. S. 690. Application for further stay to enforce this Court’s mandate denied.


text:
    No. 189.
    Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. United Transportation Union,
   402 U. S. 570. Motion of respondent to issue judgment forthwith granted.

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


text:
    No. 538.
    Swarb et al. v. Lennox et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Pa. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 401 U. S. 991.] Motion of Pennsylvania Credit Union League for leave to file brief as amicus curiae granted. Motion of National Consumers Law Center for leave to dispense with printing amicus curiae brief granted.

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


text:
    No. 1331.
    Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 402 U. S. 905.] Motion of Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.

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


text:
    No. 1184.
    No. 1231.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Plasterers’ Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ International Assn., AFL-CIO, et al.; and Texas State Tile & Terrazzo Co., Inc., et al. v. Plasterers’ Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ International Assn., AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 973.] Motion of petitioners for additional time for oral argument granted and a total of 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondents also allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.

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


text:
    No. 1332.
    Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 1008.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae granted and a total of 15 minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondent allotted 15 "additional minutes for oral argument.

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


text:
    No. 7158.
    Digesualdo et al. v. Shea, Director, Colorado Department of Social Services, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Colo. Motion to expedite consideration denied.'

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


text:
    No. 6158.
    Lindsey et al. v. Normet et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Ore. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 402 U. S. 941.]. Motion of Legal Aid Society of Pima County Bar Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.

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


text:
    No. 1389.
    United States v. Tucker.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 402 U. S. 942.] Motion of respondent for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that William A. Norris, Esquire, of Los Angeles, California, a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.

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


text:
    No. 6959.
    No. 7108.
    Harris v. Wingo, Warden; and Gubins v. Nelson, Warden.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 1667.
    Muncaster v. Johnson, U. S. District Judge.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 364.
    United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film et al. (Paladini, Claimant).
   Appeal from D. C. C. D. Cal. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 867.
    Gooding, Warden v. Wilson.
   Appeal from C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of appellee for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 1687.
    United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al. (Plamondon et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 880.
    Kelley v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1509.
    California v. King.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1521.
    Giordano et al. v. Lee et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1572.
    Stephens v. Florida Real Estate Commission et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1650.
    Milligan v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1654.
    Ginzburg v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1658.
    Magafan v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1659.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1660.
    Polack v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1663.
    Krasna v. Davies, Executrix.
   Ct: App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1669.
    Jimmie’s Inc. et al. v. City of West Haven et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1675.
    Morrison Motor Freight, Inc. v. Fox, Administratrix.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1677.
    Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1678.
    Vollmer et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied..


text:
    No. 1688.
    Fort v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1690.
    Hallmark Industry v. Peckham, U. S. District Judge (Reynolds Metals Co. et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1692.
    Macdonald v. Shawnee Country Club, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1702.
    Sweig v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1715.
    Biehunik et al. v. Felicetta et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1807.
    Texas Highway Department et al. v. Named Individual Members of the San Antonio Conservation Society.
   Petition for certiorari before judgment to C. A. 5th Cir. denied.


text:
    No. 5470.
    Arnold v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6633.
    Golembiewski v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6712.
    Willis v. Dutton, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6703.
    Summers v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6754.
    Williams v. Nelson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6757.
    McClean v. Henry, Prison Administrator.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6760.
    Howe v. North Dakota.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6766.
    Smalls v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6774.
    Vaughn v. New Mexico.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6783.
    Woodall v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6792.
    Freedman v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6795.
    Hite v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6796.
    Johns v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6855.
    Beyer v. Mancusi, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6860.
    Piercefield v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6872.
    Groessel v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6884.
    Gunzburger v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6892.
    Dandridge et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6915.
    Tarlton v. Clark, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6916.
    Smith v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6920.
    Harvey v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6921.
    Byrnes et al. v. Bostick et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6923.
    Gonzales v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6927.
    Fried v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6936.
    Parker v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6938.
    Lane v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6945.
    Spencer v. Georgia.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6956.
    Oliver v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6974.
    Smith v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6958.
    LaRocca v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6961.
    Kyle v. United States.
   Petition for cer-tiorari before judgment to C. A. 2d Cir. denied.


text:
    No. 6962.
    Redmond v. Moore, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6967.
    Bishop v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6971.
    Wells v. United States.
   ,C- A. 6th. Cir. Certiorari, denied.


text:
    No. 6975.
    Snyder v. Tennessee.
   Sup.. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6978.
    Kiper v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6981.
    Bargas v. Hocker, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6984.
    Armstrong et al. v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6986.
    Turner v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6989.
    Simmons v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6993.
    Bock v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6995.
    Winegar v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6996.
    Lack v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 7005.
    Armes v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 7007.
    Dubin v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 7016.
    Bryant v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 7021.
    McKinnon v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 7057.
    Roberts v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1045.
    Manley v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1452.
    Zorner v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Cer-tiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1666.
    Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority et al. v. United States Civil Service Commission et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6181.
    Holmes v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Cer-tiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6806.
    Knuckles et al. v. Prasse, Correction Commissioner, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Mr. Justice Black,

text:
    No. 1620.
    Eilers et al. v. Hercules, Inc., et al.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 9th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,

dissenting.

Glenn Patrick was killed and Earl Eilers was severely injured.when a defective dome lid on a railroad tank car, upon which they were working in the performance of their duties, exploded in their faces. Patrick’s widow and her. two children and Eilers, the injured workman, brought this action in the Texas state courts seeking recovery for their injuries under the Safety Appliance Acts, 27 Stat. 531, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. They named as defendants Union Tank. Car Co., the corporate owner of the tank car, Hercules, Inc., the lessee of the car, and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., the railroad which delivered the car. The case was tried to a.jury. The evidence at trial showed that the two workmen were sent to open the dome lid on top of the tank car. If functioning properly, the dome lid would have been loose and would have permitted the pressúre accumulating during the loading of the car to escape. But rust and corrosion had caused the dome lid to freeze closed and, as the two workmen mounted the car, the lid exploded, killing one and crippling the other. In response to a special-issue charge submitted by the .trial judge, the jury found that the dome lid of the tank car. in question was a safety appliance within the coverage of the Safety Appliance Acts, that the dome lid had failed to operate properly to release the car’s internal pressure, and- that-such failure was the proximate cause of the explosion and injuries;' The jury awarded $80,000 each to Patrick’s widow and two children, and $42,000 to Eilers.

The Texas Court of Civil Appeals reversed and rendered judgment for the respondents, holding that as a matter of law the dome lid of the tank car was not a safety appliance so as to invoke the absolute liability for violation of the Safety Appliance Acts. Believing that the court below is wrong in its interpretation of the Acts, I would grant the petition for writ of certiorari, reverse the decision below, and reinstate the jury verdict.

The Texas appellate court recognized that the dome lid in this case was designed to serve the dual function of an opening through which the car could be filled and an escape for pressure resulting from the filling. Indeed, the court below seemed to concede that the dome lid was a “safety appliance” but held that it was not covered by the Safety Appliance Acts because it was not specifically mentioned in the Acts or the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission. That court took this step in the face of this Court’s express decision in Shields v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 350 U. S. 318 (1956), that the Safety Appliance Acts are not limited ,to those devices specified in the Acts and the Commission regulations. As we said in that case: “At best, appliances standardized in Commission regulations represent the minimum of safety equipment, and there is no prohibition of additional safety appliances.” Id., at 324. We held in Shields that if a safety appliance is provided by the railroad or the makers of the car and used by the railroad as an appliance necessary for the use of the car, it must be safe.

One'man is dead and another is crippled for life beT cause the dome lid on the tank car furnished by the respondents was defective. The Nome lid was provided by the respondents as a safety appliance; its failure to function properly was the proximate cause of the explosion and injuries. In my view, petitioners have shown a violation of the Safety Appliancé Acts and therefore the decision below, depriving the petitioners of the jury verdict to which they were entitled, should be reversed. I dissent from the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. 7012.
    Dawson v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1655.
    Morris v. Daisy Avenue Road District of Jefferson County, Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1671.
    Morris v. Sparrow et al.
   Ct. App. Ky. . Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1719.
    Lamar Life Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1773.
    Scafati, Correctional Superintendent v. Fisher.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Stay entered by this Court on June 11, 1971 [ante, p. 913], vacated. Order of ' June 4, 1971, of the Court of Appeals that “Fisher will be ordered released as soon as the district court can conduct a hearing,” vacated and set aside. Provision of order of District Court entered July 13, 1970, that petitioner be discharged unless “timely retried without the use of tainted evidence” [314 F. Supp. 929, 938], reinstated and made effective from this date. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5911.
    In re Whichard.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Cér-tiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6660.
    Phillips v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Cer-tiorari. denied.

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


text:
    No. 6968.
    Hunter et al. v. Center Motors, Inc.
   C. Á. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 11.
    No. 104.
    No. 313.
    No. 1087.
    No. 1165.
    No. 1370.
    No. 1506.
    No. 1537.
    Washington et ux. v. United States, Wild et al. v. United States, Orito v. United States, Kelly, Judge v. Florida Judicial Qualifications Comm’n, Eubank v. Illinois, Lamp, Administratrix v. United States Steel Corp. et al., Boston & Providence Railroad Development Group v. Bartlett, Trustee, et al., Eisenberg et al. v. Wisconsin,
   402 U. S. 978;

402 U. S. 986;

402 U. S. 987;

401 U. S. 962;

402 U. S. 972;

402 U. S. 987;

402 U. S. 989; and

402 U. S. 987. Petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1538.
    No. 5145.
    No. 6312.
    No. 6317.
    No. 6400.
    No. 6588.
    No. 6728.
    No. 6928.
    No. 7034.
    Passel et al. v. Fort Worth Independent School District et al., Eason v. United States, Buchanan v. Michigan, Streule v. Gulf Finance Corp., Webster et al. v. United States, Pardo v. Illinois, Corrado et ux. v. Providence Redevelopment Agency, Campbell v. United States, Ray v. Brierley, Correctional Superintendent,
   402 U. S. 968;

402 U. S. 984;

401 U. S. 944;

402 U. S. 975;

402 U. S. 986;

402 U. S. 992;

402 U. S. 947;

ante, p. 910; and

402 U. S. 1008. Petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 150,
    Misc.,
    October Term, 1968.
    Rucker v. City of Flint et al.,
   393 U. S. 873, 956. Motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 1080.
    Fair et al. v. Kirk, Governor of Florida, et al.,
   401 U. S. 928. Motions to dispense with printing petitions granted. Petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1395.
    DeSapio v. United States,
   402 U. S. 999. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    June 23, 1971
    No. 706.
    United States v. Various Articles of “Obscene” Merchandise (Cherry, Claimant).
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y. dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.

[Probable jurisdiction noted, 402 U. S. 971.]


text:
    June 24, 1971
    No. 1528.
    Sweetheart Plastics, Inc., et al. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    June 25, 1971
    No. 1873.
    New York Times Co. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument on Saturday, June 26, 1971, at 11 a. m. Briefs and records shall be filed simultaneously, the requirement for printing being waived.

Application of New York Times Co-, for stay of mandate of .Court of Appeals granted pending further order of this Court. The Special Appendix referred to in the order , of the Court of Appeals,, and any additional items as the Uqited States may have specified with particularity, shall be served on New York Times Co. and filed in this Court by 5 p. m. today, June 25, 1971. Restraint imposed upon New York Times Co. by the Court of Appeals continued pending, argument and decision.

For purposes of argument this case is consolidated with No. 1885, United States v. Washington Post Co., certiorari granted; infra. Portions of record or argument relating to matters, claimed to affect national security may be filed in sealed form.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant the motion to vacate order of Court of Appeals except insofar as it affirms judgment of the District Court, would not continue' restraint imposed upon'New York Times Co. by the Court of Appeals, and would deny the petition for certiorari.


text:
    No. 1885.
    United States v. Washington Post Co. et al.
   C. A. D: C. Cir. Treating the application for stay as a petition for certiorari, certiorari granted and casé set for oral argument on Saturday, June 26, 1971, .at 11 a. m. Briefs and records shall be filed simultaneously, the.requirement for printing being waived. Portions of record or argument relating to matters claimed to affect •national security may be filed in sealed form.

Pending argument and decision in this case, restraint . imposed by Court of Appeals on the Washington Post Co. and its officers continued but' limited to items specified in the Special Appendix filed on June 21, 1971, with' . the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a case in that court captioned United States v. New York Times Co., Docket 71-1616, decided June 23, 1971, and any such additional items as the United States may have specified with particularity by. 5 p. m. today, June 25, 1971. Said Appendix as supplemented shall be served on respondent Washington Post Co. and filed in this Court at that time.

For purposes of argument case is consolidated with No. 1873, New York Times Co. v. United States, certiorari granted, supra.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall would not continue restraint, as limited or otherwise, and, treating application as a petition for certiorari, would deny certiorari.


text:
    June 26, 1971
    No. 1873.
    No. 1885.
    New York Times Co. v. United States; and United States v. Washington Post Co. et al.
   The Chief Justice announced in open Court that the Government’s motion to conduct part of oral arguments involving security matters in camera denied and under order granting writ counsel may submit arguments in writing under seal in lieu of in camera oral argument.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant limited in camera argument.

Two hours allowed for oral argument.


text:
    June 28, 1971
    No. 517.
    Board of Education of County of Kanawha et al. v. Hughes.
   Appeal from Sup-. Ct. ■ App. W. Ya. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a .petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction.should' be noted, and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 934.
    No. 935.
    Americans United, Incorporated as Protestants & Other Americans United for Separation of Church & State, et al. v. Independent School District No. 622, Ramsey County, et al. ; and Stark v. Mattheis, Commissioner of Education of Minnesota, et al.
   Appeals from Sup. Ct. Minn, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and cases set for oral argument.

Reported below: 288 Minn. 196, 179 N. W. 2d 146.


text:
    No. 852.
    No. 858.
    Kervick, State Treasurer of New Jersey v. Clayton et al.; and Levine et al. v. Clayton et al.
   Appeals from Sup. Ct. N. J. Judgment vacated and cases remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decisions in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Earley v. DiCenso, and Robinson v. DiCenso, ante, p. 602; and Tilton v. Richardson, ante, p. 672.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed. Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Reported below: 56 N. J. 523, 267 A. 2d 503.


text:
    No. 1329.
    Hunt v. McNair, Governor of South Carolina, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. S. C. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in-light of this Court’s decisions in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Earley v. DiCenso, and Robinson v. DiCenso, ante, p. 602; and Tilton v. Richardson, ante, p. 672.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 5020.
    Clark v. Smith, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment reversed,' Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and case remanded for further proceedings.

Mr. Justice Black dissents.


text:
    No. 5006.
    No. 5015.
    No. 5022.
    No. 5027.
    No. 5058.
    No. 5063.
    No. 5064.
    No. 5065.
    No. 5066.
    No. 5074.
    Mathis v. New Jersey. Mathis v. Alabama. Speck v. Illinois. Segura v. Patterson, Warden. Whan v. Texas. Duplessis v. Louisiana. Jaggers v. Kentucky. Aiken v. Washington, and Wheat v. Washington. Pruett v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Reported below: 52 N. J. 238, 245 A. 2d 20;

Sup. Ct. Ala. Reported below: 283 Ala. 308, 216 So. 2d 286;

Sup. Ct. Ill. Reported below: 41 Ill. 2d 177, 242 N. E. 2d 208;

C. A. 10th Cir. Reported below: 402 F. 2d 249;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Reported below: 438 S. W. 2d 918;

Sup. Ct. La. Reported below: 253 La. 992, 221 So. 2d 484;

Ct. App. Ky. Reported below: 439 S. W. 2d 580;

Sup. Ct. Wash. Reported below: 75 Wash. 2d 421, 452 P. 2d 232; and

Sup. Ct. Ohio.- Reported below: 18 Ohio St; 2d 167, 248 N. E. 2d 605. Motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and cer-tiorari granted. Judgments, insofar as they impose the death sentence, reversed and cases remanded for further proceedings. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1968); Boulden v. Holman, 394 U. S. 478 (1969); and Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U. S. 262 (1970).

Mr. Justice Black dissents.


text:
    No. 5077.
    No. 5080.
    No. 5086.
    No. 5094.
    No. 5114.
    No. 5142.
    No. 5288.
    No. 5887.
    No. 6049.
    No. 6458.
    Quintana v. Texas. Wigglesworth v. Ohio. Crain v. Beto, Corrections Director. Wilson et al. v. Florida. Pemberton v. Ohio. Ladetto v. Massachusetts. Turner v. Texas. Bernette v. Illinois; and Tajra v. Illinois. Harris v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Reported below: 441 S. W. 2d 191;

Sup. Ct. Ohio. Reported below: 18 Ohio St. 2d 171, 248 N. E. 2d 607;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. ;

Sup. Ct. Fla. Reported below: 225 So. 2d 321;

Sup. Ct. Ohio;

Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Reported below: 356 Mass. 541, 254 N. E. 2d 415;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Reported below: 462 S. W. 2d 9;

Sup. Ct., Ill. Reported below: 45 Ill. 2d 227, 258 N. E. 2d 793; and

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and cer-tiorari granted. Judgments, insofar as they impose the death-sentence, reversed and cases remanded for further proceedings. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1968); Boulden v. Holman, 394 U. S. 478 (1960); and Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U. S. 262 (1970).

Mr. Justice Black dissents.


text:
    No. 129.
    Adams v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Motions to dispense with printing petition and response granted. Certiorari granted and judgment, insofar as it imposés the death sentence, reversed and case remanded for further proceedings. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1968); Boulden v. Holman, 394 U. S. 478 (1969); and Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U. S. 262 (1970).

Mr. Justice Black dissents.


text:
    No. 5011.
    No. 5014.
    Funicello v. New Jersey. Childs v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Reported below: 52 N. J. 263, 245 A. 2d 181; and

Super. Ct. N. C., Buncombe County. Reported below: See 269 N. C. 307, 152 S. E. 2d 453. Motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgments, insofar as they impose the death sentence, reversed and cases remanded for further proceedings. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1968); Boulden vHolman, 394 U. S. 478 (1969) ; Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U. S. 262 (1970); and United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570 (1968).

Mr. Justice Black dissents.


text:
    No. 5072.
    No. 5136.
    No. 5178.
    No. 5837.
    No. 6006.
    No. 6386.
    No. 7122.
    Atkinson v. North Carolina. Hill v. North Carolina. Roseboro v. North Carolina. Williams v. North Carolina. Sanders v. North Carolina. Thomas v. Leeke, Corrections Director. Atkinson v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Reported below: 275 N. C. 288, 167 S. E. 2d 241;

Sup. Ct. N. C. Reported below: 276 N. C. 1, 170 S. E. 2d 885;

Sup. Ct. N. C.' Reported below: 276 N. C. 185, 171 S. E. 2d 886;

Sup. Ct.' N. C. Reported below: 276 N. C. 703, 174 S. E. 2d 503;

Sup. Ct. N. C. Reported below: 276 N. C. 598, 174 S. E. 2d 487;

Sup. Ct. S. C.; and

Sup. Ct. N. C. Reported below: 278 N. C. 168, 179 S. E. 2d 410. Motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and cer-tiorari granted.. Judgments, insofar as they impose the death sentence,, reversed, United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570 (1968), Pope v. United States, 392 U. S. 651 (1968), and cases remanded for further proceedings.

Mr.' Justice Black dissents.


text:
    No. 5139.
    Anderson et al. v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment reversed, Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968), and case remanded for further proceedings.

Mr. Justice Black dissents.


text:
    No. 48.
    Hudson v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Cer-tiorari dismissed. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U. S. 365 (1970).


text:
    No. 35,
    Orig.
    United States v. Maine et al.
   Motion by the United States to dismiss counterclaim and deny demand for jury trial filed by the State of Florida received and filed, and the State of Florida allowed 60 days to respond. Upon receipt of response of the State of Florida, motion and response shall be referred to Special Master for Ms report and recommendation. Joint motion of the United States and the State of Florida to consolidate proceedings herein against the State of Florida with United States v. Louisiana, No. 9, Orig., grants Report of Special Master upon motion of the State of Florida for severance received and filed, and motion of the State of Florida for severance granted.

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

[For earlier orders herein, see, e. g., 400 U. S. 914.]


text:
    No. 45,
    Orig.
    Washington et al. v. General Motors Corp. et al.
   Motion of the State of Idaho to be named as a party plaintiff granted.

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

[For earlier order herein, see 402 U. S. 940.]


text:
    No. 9,
    Orig.
    United States v. Louisiana et al. (Louisiana Boundary Case).
   Joint motion of the

United’ States and the State of Florida to initiate supplemental proceedings granted. Motions of the United States and the State of Florida to consolidate proceedings [see No. 35, Origij-swpraj and to appoint Special Master granted. .

It Is Ordered that the Honorable Albert B. Maris, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, be, and he is hereby, appointed Special Master to conduct supplemental proceedings which shall be docketed as case No. 52, Orig. The Special Master shall have authority to fix the time and conditions for filing additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings, and authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas,-and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The Master is directed to subihit such reports as he may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

[For earlier orders herein, she, e. g., 395 U. S. 901.]


text:
    No. 48,
    Orig.
    Mississippi v. Arkansas.
   Report of Special Master contained, in his letter dated May 12, 1971, to the Clerk of this Court, is approved and shall be filed with the .Clerk. [For earlier orders herein, see,' e. g., 402 U. S. 939.]


text:
    No. 203.
    No. 204.
    McGautha v. California; and Crampton v. Ohio,
   402 U. S. 183. Issuance of mandate-of this Court in each of these cases . stayed pending disposition of petitions for rehearing..


text:
    No. 1606.
    Dies et al. v. Carter et al.
   Appeal from

D. C. N. D. Tex. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 904.] Motion of appellee Pate for enlargement of time for oral argument granted, and an additional 10 minutes allotted to appellees.to»be divided equally between counsel for appellee Pate and counsel for appellee Wischkaemper. An additional 10 minütes for oral argument allotted to counsel for appellants. Pursúant to further motion of appellee Pate, total time allotted to appellees for.oral argument is divided equally between counsel for appellee Pate and counsellor appellee Wisch-kaemper so that each will have 20 minutes.


text:
    No. 5161.
    Johnson v. Louisiana.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. La. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 400 U. S. 900] ; and


text:
    No. 5338.
    Apodaca et al. v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. [Certiorari granted, 400 U. S. 901.] Cases restored to calendar for reargum.ent.


text:
    No. 5712.
    Milton v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 904.] Motion of petitioner for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Neil P. Rutledge, Esquire, of Durham, North Carolina, a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 6623.
    McKenzie v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Period of time for filing brief in support of petition for certiorari hereby extended to July 18, 1971. The Attorney General of Texas is invited to file a responsive brief within 10 days from date of receipt of petitioner’s brief. [For earlier order herein, see 402 U. S. 971.] '


text:
    No. 5049.
    Aikens v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Does the imposition ^and carrying out of the death penalty in this case constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and'Fourteenth Amendments?”


text:
    No. 5025.
    Schneble v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion for leave to proceed, in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to the question whether petitioner’s conviction was in violation oí Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968).


text:
    No. 5059.
    No. 5133.
    No. 5135.
    Furman v. Georgia. Jackson v. Georgia. Branch v. Texas.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Reported below: 225 Ga. 253, 167 S. E. 2d 628;

Sup. Ct. Ga. Reported below: 225 Ga. 790, 171 S. E. 2d 501; and

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Reported below: 447 S. W. 2d 932. Certiorari granted limited to the-following question: “Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in [these cases] constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?”


text:
    No. 5056.
    Moore v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion of American Civil Liberties Union, Illinois Division, et al., for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Motion for leave to proceed in forma “pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1, 3, and 4 set forth in the petition which read'as follows:

“1. Petitioner was sentenced to death for murder. Six items of exonerating evidence were not disclosed to him at trial. The court below affirmed on the ground that the prosecution’s duty to. disclose exonerating evidence depends upon a request; that the prosecutor had shown his entire file to defense counsel at trial and no further request for disclosure was made. None of the exonerating items was contained in said file. Trial defense counsel were ignorant of the existence of the suppressed information..

“Questions presented are:

“(a) Whether a request is an indispensable prerequisite to disclosure of exonerating evidence by ■the State?
“(b) Whether material evidence favorable to an accused should be disclosed by the State without a request where such, evidence is not recorded? ■
“(c) Whether denial of due process of law is contingent upon a request where a State knowingly permits false testimony to remain uncorrected?
“(d) Where a prosecutor shows his entire file to defense counsel at trial, but none of the exonerating items of evidence are contained in said file, does that’ satisfy the prosecution’s duty of disclosure?
“(e) Whether nondisclosure of the prosecuting police department is imputable to the prosecution?”

“3. The deceased was killed with a twelve-gauge shotgun. The Chicago 'Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory determined that he Ivas killed with a twelve-gauge shotgun. (A. 139.) The prosecutor stated in a Bill of Particulars that the murder weapon, was a twelve-gauge shotgun. (A.2.)

“Over objection (A.81-94), the'prosecution introduced a sixteen-gauge shotgun into evidence. (A.94.) The sixteen-gauge shotgun did not belong to the petitioner, was not recovered from him, and was never in his possession or control. (A.58, 66-71.)

“During closing argument the prosecutor told the jury that the.sixteen-gauge shotgun was not the weapon that killed the deceased, but that any man who was with another man. who had the shotgun and shells for it was the type- of person. that deserved the death penalty. (A.191-201, 204-206.)

“The question presented is whether the introduction' and use of such evidence, totally unconnected with the petitioner or the crime charged, denied the petitioner a fair trial?”

“4. Eight veniremen were removed for cause when they voiced general objections to capital punishment or stated that they had religious or conscientious scruples against the death penalty in a proper case.

“In the light of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, may a state court of; review affirm a death sentence,

“(a) on the ground that the tenor of voir dire' examination was unlike that of Witherspoon?
“(h) on the ground that the prosecution had sufficient peremptory challenges to have eliminated those prospective jurors eligible to serve under Witherspoon ?”■


text:
    No. 35.
    Davis v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1508.
    Williams et al. v. Seegers et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1626.
    Donahey, Treasurer of Ohio, et al. v. Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State et al.
   C. A.'6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5017.
    Bell v. Patterson, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5099.
    No. 5100.
    Williams v. Tennessee; and Benton v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 222 Tenn. 672, 440 S. W. 2d 1.


text:
    No. 1257.
    Saville et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6658.
    Martin v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp.,App. Md. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    June 30, 1971
    No. 1596.
    No. 1624.
    Sanders, Secretary of the Board of Education of Connecticut, et al. v. Johnson et al.; and Buckley et al. v. Johnson et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Conn.

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

Reported below: 319 F. Supp. 421.


text:
    No. —.
    Goss et al. v. Board of Education of the City of Knoxville et al.
   Petitioners’-motion for immediate order requiring submission of a plan for desegregation of Knoxville school system'for the 1971-1972 school year and for an order requiring the District Court to hold timely hearings, .enter such orders, and entertain such proceeding^ as may be necessary to' achieve a unitary school system in Knoxville by the commencement of the 1971-1972 school year, presented to Mr. Justice Stewart and .by him referred tó the Court, denied. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has not had an opportunity since the June 22, 1971, remand of the case by the United States Court-of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to inquire whether respondents have failéd to maiptain a unitary school system as defined in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1 (1971), and prior cases. Of course, the District Court must conduct'forthwith such proceedings as may be required for prompt determination of this question, and, should it find respondents have not maintained a unitary school system, respondents must “terminate dual school systems at once.” Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U. S. 19, 20 (1969). The mandate of the. Court of Appeals should issue forthwith.


text:
    No. 577.
    United States v. Johnson.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 400 U. S. 990.] Case restored to calendar for reargument. In their briefs and oral arguments, counsel requested to discuss, in addition to question specified, in original petition, the following: “What relevance has the doctrine of Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U. S. 535, to the legality of the search in the present case?”


text:
    No. —.

      Friedland v. Justices of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, en banc.
   Application for extraordinary relief denied.

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


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    HICKS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ORANGE COUNTY, et al. v. PLEASURE HOUSE, INC., et al.
    No. 70-127.
    Decided October 12, 1971
   Per Curiam.

The appellants seek review of a temporary restraining order entered by a single district judge in a case certified for presentation to a statutory three-judge court. The order, inter alia, stayed a pending prosecution of the appellees under certain state obscenity laws and temporarily restrained further enforcement of the laws against the appellees. It was entered by the District Judge shortly after he had certified a request for designation of a three-judge court to hear the appellees’ suit for permanent declaratory and injunctive relief. Under 28 U. S. C. § 2284 (3), a single district judge has power to enter such an order in a case to be heard by a three-judge court, but the order can be entered only “to prevent irreparable damage” and can “remain in force only until the hearing and determination by the full court.”

The appellants argue that the order in this case contravenes principles set forth last Term in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971). They invoke this Court’s jurisdiction on direct appeal from “an interlocutory or permanent injunction” in any action “required ... to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges,” under 28 U. S. C. § 1253. Since, however, § 1253 does not authorize a direct appeal to this Court from a § 2284 (3) order by a single district judge, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Long ago, this Court made clear that no direct appeal lies under § 1253 to the Supreme Court from a temporary restraining order issued by a single judge, even though the order may amount to an “interlocutory injunction” and may have been issued in an action required to be heard by a three-judge court. Stratton v. St. Louis S. R. Co., 282 U. S. 10. See Ex parte Metropolitan Water Co., 220 U. S. 539. This is so because § 1253 “plainly contemplates such a direct appeal only in the case of an order or decree entered by a court composed of three judges in accordance with the statutory requirement.” Stratton v. St. Louis S. R. Co., supra, at 16. See Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Comm’n, 393 U. S. 83; Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 391 U. S. 352; Schackman v. Arnebergh, 387 U. S. 427; Buchanan v. Rhodes, 385 U. S. 3.

More recently, this Court has held that an appeal may lie to a court of appeals from certain actions of a single district judge in a case required to be heard by three judges. Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Comm’n, supra; Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, supra; Schackman v. Arnebergh, supra; Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713. A court of appeals is not “powerless ... to give any guidance when a single judge has erroneously invaded the province of a three-judge court.” Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, supra, at 716. Thus, if a single judge oversteps his limited authority under §2284 (3), a court of appeals may correct his error. In addition, a temporary restraining order issued pursuant to § 2284 (3) is reviewable in a court of appeals to the extent that any such order is reviewable under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1291 and 1292 (a). However, if no such appeal is taken before the three-judge court is convened, application must be made to that court for vacation or modification of the temporary restraining order pending a final determination on the merits.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

       In the instant case, the single judge himself determined that the action was one required to be heard by a three-judge court and then entered his temporary restraining order; in Stratton, supra, on the other hand, the single judge erroneously determined that a three-judge court was not required and then entered a similar order. This distinction between the cases, however, makes no difference in principle.

       The papers before the Court in this case do not make clear whether or not the three-judge court has now been convened.


text:
    ARCINIEGA v. FREEMAN, U. S. MARSHAL
    No. 70-5135.
    Decided October 26, 1971
   Per Curiam.

Petitioner’s parole was revoked by the Federal Parole Board because of association with other ex-convicts. In a petition for habeas corpus, petitioner contended that the record did not disclose any evidence in support of this conclusion. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sustained the revocation on the sole ground that petitioner worked at a restaurant-nightclub that employed other ex-convicts. 439 F. 2d 776.

The Parole Board has wide authority to set conditions, 18 U. S. C. § 4203 (a), and here petitioner was forbidden to “associate” with other ex-convicts. But the Board’s own regulations require “satisfactory evidence” of a parole violation to justify an arrest warrant. 28 CFR § 2.35. We do not believe that the parole condition restricting association was intended to apply to incidental contacts between ex-convicts in the course of work on a legitimate job for a common employer. Nor is such occupational association, standing alone, satisfactory evidence of non-business association violative of the parole restriction. To so assume would be to render a parolee vulnerable to imprisonment whenever his employer, willing to hire .ex-convicts, hires more than one. Absent a clear Parole 'Board directive to this effect, we cannot sustain the judgment of the Court of Appeals that on-the-job contact with fellow employees with police records is sufficient evidence of parole violation. If there is in this record other evidence of forbidden association or evidence of other parole violations, neither the Court of Appeals nor the United States has identified it.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas

text:
    SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE OF NEW YORK v. BANKERS LIFE & CASUALTY CO. et al.
    No. 70-60.
    Argued October 13, 1971
    Decided November 8, 1971

      Arnold Bauman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Morton J. Schlossberg.

      William W. Karatz argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent Irving Trust Co. Irving Parker argued the cause for respondent Bankers Life & Casualty Co. With him on the brief were William T. Kirby and Isaac M. Bayda. William E. Willis and Michael M. Maney filed a brief for respondents Belgian-American Banking Corp. et al. William Heller filed a brief for respondents Garvin, Bantel & Co. et al.

      Walter P. North argued the cause for the Securities and Exchange Commission as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Peter L. Strauss, Philip A. Loomis, Jr., and Theodore Sonde.

   Mr. Justice Douglas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Manhattan Casualty Co., now represented by petitioner, New York’s Superintendent of Insurance, was, it is alleged, defrauded in the sale of certain securities in violation of § 17 (a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 84, 15 U. S. C. § 77q (a), and of § 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, 15 U. S. C. § 78j (b). The District Court dismissed the complaint, 300 F. Supp. 1083, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, by a divided bench. 430 F. 2d 355. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted, 401 U. S. 973.

It seems that Bankers Life & Casualty Co., one of the respondents, agreed to sell all of Manhattan’s stock to one Begole for $5,000,000. It is alleged that Begole conspired with one Bourne and others to pay for this stock, not out of their own funds, but with Manhattan’s assets. They were alleged to have arranged, through Garvin, Bantel & Co. — a note brokerage firm — to obtain a $5,000,000 check from respondent Irving Trust Co., although they had no funds on deposit there at the time. On the same day they purchased all the stock of Manhattan from Bankers Life for $5,000,000 and as stockholders and directors, installed one Sweeny as president of Manhattan.

Manhattan then sold its United States Treasury bonds for $4,854,552.67. That amount, plus enough cash to bring the total to $5,000,000, was credited to an account of Manhattan at Irving Trust and the $5,000,000 Irving Trust check was charged against it. As a result, Begole owned all the stock of Manhattan, having used $5,000,000 of Manhattan's assets to purchase it.

To complete the fraudulent scheme, Irving Trust issued a second $5,000,000 check to Manhattan which Sweeny, Manhattan's new president, tendered to Belgian-American Bank & Trust Co. which issued a $5,000,000 certificate of deposit in the name of Manhattan. Sweeny endorsed the certificate of deposit over to New England Note Corp., a company alleged to be controlled by Bourne. Bourne endorsed the certificate over to Belgian-American Banking Corp. as collateral for a $5,000,000 loan from Belgian-American Banking to New England. Its proceeds were paid to Irving Trust to cover the latter’s second $5,000,000 check.

Though Manhattan's assets had been depleted, its books reflected only the sale of its Government bonds and the purchase of the certificate of deposit and did not show that its assets had been used by Begole to pay for his purchase of Manhattan’s shares or that the certificate of deposit had been assigned to New England and then pledged to Belgian-American Banking.

Manhattan was the seller of Treasury bonds and, it seems to us, clearly protected by § 10 (b), 15 U. S. C. § 78j (b), of the Securities Exchange Act, which makes it unlawful to use “in connection with the purchase or sale” of any security “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” in contravention of the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There certainly was an “act” or “practice” within the meaning of Rule 10b-5 which operated as “a fraud or deceit” on Manhattan, the seller of the Government bonds. To be sure, the full market price was paid for those bonds; but the seller was duped into believing that it, the seller, would receive the proceeds. We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that “no investor [was] injured” and that the “purity of the security transaction and the purity of the trading process were unsullied.” 430 F. 2d, at 361.

Section 10 (b) outlaws the use “in connection with the purchase or sale” of any security of “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance.” The Act protects corporations as well as individuals who are sellers of a security. Manhattan was injured as an investor through a deceptive device which deprived it of any compensation for the sale of its valuable block of securities.

The fact that the fraud was perpetrated by an officer of Manhattan and his outside collaborators is irrelevant to our problem. For § 10 (b) bans the use of any deceptive device in the “sale” of any security by “any person.” And the fact that the transaction is not conducted through a securities exchange or an organized over-the-counter market is irrelevant to the coverage of § 10 (b). Hooper v. Mountain States Securities Corp., 282 F. 2d 195, 201. Likewise irrelevant is the fact that the proceeds of the sale that were due the seller' were misappropriated. As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said in the Hooper case, “Considering the purpose of this legislation, it would be unrealistic to say that a corporation having the capacity to acquire $700,000 worth of assets for its 700,000 shares of stock has suffered no loss if what it gave up was $700,000 but what it got was zero.” 282 F. 2d, at 203.

The Congress made clear that “disregard of trust relationships by those whom the law should regard as fiduciaries, are all a single seamless web” along with manipulation, investor’s ignorance, and the like. H. R. Rep. No. 1383, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 6. Since practices “constantly vary and where practices legitimate for some purposes may be turned to illegitimate and fraudulent means, broad discretionary powers” in the regulatory agency “have been found practically essential.” Id., at 7. Hence we do not read § 10 (b) as narrowly as the Court of Appeals; it is not “limited to preserving the integrity of the securities markets” (430 F. 2d, at 361), though that purpose is included. Section 10 (b) must be read flexibly, not technically and restrictively. Since there was a “sale” of a security and since fraud was used “in connection with” it, there is redress under § 10 (b), whatever might be available as a remedy under state law.

We agree that Congress by § 10 (b) did not seek to regulate transactions which constitute no more than internal corporate mismanagement. But we read § 10 (b) to mean that Congress meant to bar deceptive devices and contrivances in the purchase or sale of securities whether conducted in the organized markets or face to face. And the fact that creditors of the defrauded corporate buyer or seller of securities may be the ultimate victims does not warrant disregard of the corporate entity. The controlling stockholder owes the corporation a fiduciary obligation — one “designed for the protection of the entire community of interests in the corporation — creditors as well as stockholders.” Pepper v. Litton, 308 U. S. 295, 307.

The crux of the present case is that Manhattan suffered an injury as a result of deceptive practices touching its sale of securities as an investor. As stated in Shell v. Hensley, 430 F. 2d 819, 827:

“When a person who is dealing with a corporation in a securities transaction denies the corporation’s directors access to material information known to him, the corporation is disabled from availing itself of an informed judgment on the part of its board regarding the merits of the transaction. In this situation the private right of action recognized under Rule 10b-5 is available as a remedy for the corporate disability.”

The case was before the lower courts on a motion to dismiss.

Bankers Life urges that the complaint did not allege, and discovery failed to disclose, any connection between it and the fraud and that, therefore, the dismissal of the complaint as to it was correct and should be affirmed. We make no ruling on this point.

The case must be remanded for trial. We intimate no opinion on the merits, as we have dealt only with allegations and with the question of law whether a cause of action as respects the sale by Manhattan of its Treasury bonds has been charged under § 10 (b). We think it has been so charged and accordingly we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

All defenses except our ruling on § 10 (b) will be open on remand.

Reversed.

       Manhattan’s Board of Directors was allegedly deceived into authorizing this sale by the misrepresentation that the proceeds would be exchanged for a certificate of deposit of equal value.

       Belgian-American Banking at the same time made a loan to New England Note in the amount of $250,000 which was distributed in part as follows: Belgian-American Banking $100,000, Bourne $50,000, Begole $50,000, and Garvin, Bantel $25,000.

       Section 10 (b) provides:
      “It shall be unlawful for any person . . . [t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”

       Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR §240.10b-5, provides:
      “It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
      “(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
      “(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
      “(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”

       N. 4, supra.

       Section 3 (a) (10) of the 1934 Act defines “security” very broadly (see Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U. S. 332) and clearly embraces Treasury bonds.

       See, e. g., Allico Nat. Corp. v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, 397 F. 2d 727 (CA7 1968), which held sufficient under § 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5 a complaint which charged that defendant union, upon discovering that a third party would pay a higher price, breached a prior agreement to sell 100% of the stock in a wholly owned life insurance company to plaintiffs. The court placed primary reliance on the fact that in the course of the transaction, the union misappropriated some 25,000 shares of the life insurance company’s stock which had previously been sold to plaintiffs for cash, but which were being held in escrow pending consummation of the agreement.
      “Even if a breach of contract in order to make a more favorable contract would not in itself be sufficient [to confer jurisdiction under § 10(b)], we have more here. The motivation not only is said to induce a breach of contract . . . but also to induce the conversion of plaintiffs’ pledged 25,000 shares.” Id.., at 729-730. See also Cooper v. North Jersey Trust Co., 226 F. Supp. 972 (SDNY 1964), in which a conspiracy to loan plaintiff money to buy securities, followed by the misappropriation of the purchased securities when they were pledged to secure the loan, was held to violate § 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5.
      Indeed, misappropriation is a “garden variety” type of fraud compared to the scheme which gave rise to A. T. Brod & Co. v. Perlow, 375 F. 2d 393 (CA2 1967). That ease involved an action by a broker against its own customers for the recovery of losses suffered when defendant customers refused to pay for securities previously ordered which had decreased in value by the settlement date. The complaint charged that this refusal to honor the purchase order was part of the customers’ deceptive plan only to pay for securities purchased for their account when those securities had appreciated in value by the date payment was due.
      Rejecting the customers’ pleas that “no fraud is alleged as to the investment value of the securities nor any fraud ‘usually associated with the sale or purchase of securities,’ ” id., at 396, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — composed of a different panel from the one sitting in the instant case — reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint.
      “[We do not] think it sound to dismiss a complaint merely because the alleged scheme does not involve the type of fraud that is ‘usually associated with the sale or purchase of securities.’ We believe that § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or present a unique form of deception. Novel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws.” Id., at 397.

       The history of the Act shows that Congress was especially concerned with the impact of frauds on creditors of corporations. See H. R. Rep. No. 1383, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 3-4.

       It is now established that a private right of action is implied under §10(b). See 6 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 3869-3873 (1969); 3 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 1763 et seq. (2d ed. 1961). Cf. Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U. S. 332; J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426.

       Petitioner’s complaint bases his single claim for recovery alternatively on three different transactions alleged to confer jurisdiction under § 10 (b): Manhattan’s sale of the Treasury bonds; the sale of Manhattan stock by Bankers Life to Bourne and Begole; and the transactions involving the certificates of deposit. We only hold that the alleged fraud is cognizable under § 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5 in the bond sale and we express no opinion as to Manhattan’s standing under § 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5 on other phases of the complaint. See Kellogg, The Inability to Obtain Analytical Precision Where Standing to Sue Under Rule 10b-5 is Involved, 20 Buffalo L. Rev. 93 (1970); Lowenfels, The Demise of the Birnbaum Doctrine: A New Era For Rule 10b-5, 54 Va. L. Rev. 268 (1968).


text:
    YOUNGER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. GILMORE et al.
    No. 70-9.
    Argued October 14, 1971
    Decided November 8, 1971

      George R. Nock, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, pro se, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Robert R. Granucd, Deputy Attorney General.

      John Eshleman Wahl, by appointment of the Court, post, p'. 814, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Marshall W. Krause.

      Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Charles Stephen Ralston, Stanley A. Bass, Anthony G. Amsterdam, William Bennett Turner, and Alice Daniel filed a brief for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.
   Per Curiam.

On this appeal we postponed the question of jurisdiction pending the hearing of the case on the merits. 401 U. S. 906 (1971).

Having heard the case on its merits, we find that this Court does have jurisdiction (Alabama Teachers v. Alabama Public School and College Authority, 393 U. S. 400 (1969)) and affirm the judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of California. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483 (1969).