text:
    No. 5221.
    Alexander v. Lynch, Attorney General of California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 5222.
    Troche v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5223.
    Lares v. Beto, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5225.
    Newsome v. Maxwell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5227.
    Sharpe v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5228.
    Cortes et al. v. Puerto Rico et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5229.
    Gibson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5230.
    Blankner v. City of Chicago.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5231.
    Guerin v. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5232.
    Suniga v. Craven, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5233.
    Bolick v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5234.
    Norris v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5235.
    Hill v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5236.
    Washington v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5237.
    La Brasca v. Misterly, Sheriff.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5238.
    Johnson v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5239.
    Aguecci v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5240.
    Workman v. Pate, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5241.
    Bartlett v. Baynes, Judge, et al.
   Sup, Ct. Ohio, Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5242.
    Gruver v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5243.
    Cisneros v. Beto, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5244.
    Alers v. Municipality of San Juan et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5248.
    Mohland v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. 'Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5252.
    Tyler et al. v. United States.
   C. A., 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5253.
    Casey v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir.. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5255.
    Shole v. O’Ferrall, Assistant Attorney General of Maryland, et al.
   C. A. 4th <Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5262.
    Young v. Swenson, Warden.
   C. A. 8th, Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5263.
    Jarrels v. Warden, Queens House of Detention for Men.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5264.
    Mancuso v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5266.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 9th..Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5267.
    Walker v. Field, Men’s Colony Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5268.
    Sanders v. North Carolina.
   C. A.. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5273.
    Callahan v. Follette, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5277.
    Freshwater, aka Morrison v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5278.
    Foster v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d. Jud. Dept: Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5279.
    Iarossi v. United States.
   C. A- 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5281.
    Black v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5282.
    Dvorsky v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5283.
    Booth v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App.. Md. Certiorari- denied.


text:
    No. 5284.
    Noble v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5285.
    No. 5328.
    Keine v. United States; and Kregas v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5286.
    Dinneen v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5287.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari, denied.


text:
    No. 5292.
    Nipp v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5289.
    Carrier v. Boling.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5293.
    Hunt v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied;


text:
    No. 5294.
    Maloney v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5297.
    Eisen v. Eastman.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5298.
    Matalon v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5299.
    Crawford v. Cox, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5300.
    Moreno-Vallejo v. United States.
   C. Á. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5301.
    Applegate v. United States.
   C. A.- 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5302.
    Insana v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5304.
    Rodriquez v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5306.
    Reed v. Kirk, Governor of Florida, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. ’


text:
    No. 5307.
    Perez v. United States.
   C. .A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5308.
    Matthews v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5310.
    Harper v. Kropp, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5313.
    Fitts v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5314.
    Kelley v. Johnson, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5315.
    DeSimone v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir: Certiorari denied..


text:
    No. 5316.
    Coleman v. Mancusi, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5318.
    Morales v. New Mexico.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5319.
    McGee v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5320.
    Scott v. LaVallee, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir.. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5323.
    Fontana v. United States.
   C. A; 2d.. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5324.
    Austin v. North Carolina.
   Sup. ,Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5329.
    Price v. Follette, Warden.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N: Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5330.
    Ayers v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5335.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5333.
    Rambeau v. Rundle, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5336.
    Phillips v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5337.
    Ford v. Pate, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari: dénied.


text:
    No. 5340.
    Hurst v. United States.
   C. A.' 9th Cir. . Certiorari .denied.


text:
    No. 5343.
    Obstein v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5347.
    Glazewski v. New Jersey et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir.' Certiorari denied!


text:
    No. 5348.
    Broberg v. Minnesota.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5350.
    Rayborn v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5352.
    Carter v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: —— Tenn. App. —, — S. W. 2d —.


text:
    No. 5355.
    Dixon v. Nelson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5356.
    Savage v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5359.
    No. 5436.
    Connolly v. Massachusetts; and Cote v. Massachusetts.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5362.
    Dancy v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5363.
    Wiggins v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5364.
    Maston, aka Massey v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5367.
    Randall v. Jordan, Secretary of State of California, et al.
   • Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5368.
    Patten v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crina.. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5369.
    Dockery v. California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5371.
    Denson v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5372.
    Stebbins v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5375.
    Churchwell v. Neil, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5376.
    Sears v. United States.
   C: A. 5th Cir.' Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5378.
    Hemstreet v. Leavey et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5379.
    Williamson v. California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5381.
    Gerberding v. Minnesota.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5384.
    Bean v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5386.
    Owens v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5389.
    Preston v. Wingo, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5390.
    Gilmore v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st D'ist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5391.
    Hicks v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5392.
    Crosby v. Brierley, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5393.
    Richards v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5395.
    Reed v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir> Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5400.
    Wapnick v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5401.
    Elmer v. Wyoming.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5402.
    Minor v. Follette, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5404.
    Grant et ux. v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5405.
    Ferrell v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5407.
    Coleman v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5408.
    Monett v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5410.
    Howell v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Cer-_ tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5414.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5415.
    Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5416.
    Rogers v. Warden, Nevada State Prison.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5420.
    Walton v. California Adult Authority.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5421.
    Reed v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied..


text:
    No. 5422.
    McMath v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5423.
    Onick v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5424.
    Parhms v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5430.
    Kauffman v. Moss, District Attorney of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5434.
    Lamb v. Beto, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5431.
    Taylor v. Mancusi, Warren.
   C. A. 2d Cir: Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5440.
    Markee v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari ■ denied,


text:
    No. 5441.
    No. 5445.
    No. 5446.
    No. 5451.
    No. 5639.
    White v. United States; Carlson v. United States; Henderson v. United States; Dix v. United States; and Diemert v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: .423 F. 2d 431.


text:
    No. 5442.
    Carusiello v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5444.
    Gilpin v. Utah.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5450.
    Godfrey v. Rundle, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir.


text:
    No. 5453.
    Overman v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.’


text:
    No. 5495.
    Woodmansee v. Vermont.
   Sup; Ct. Vt. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5496.
    Jordan v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5498.
    Brown v. Schneckloth, Conservation Center Superintendent.
   C.' A. ■ 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5505.
    Jackson v. Arizona.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 131.
    Hargraves v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Motion of respondent to dispense with printing response to petition for certiorari granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 157.
    Hollywood Baseball Assn. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir.' Certi-orari denied.

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


text:
    No. 268.
    Nolan v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 467.
    Gordon et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5403.
    Boyden v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 162.
    Hatcher v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing, petition granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 229.
    Blackwell v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 307.
    Nepstead et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 391.
    Santoro v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 392.
    Gallagher v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Cer-tiorari'denied.


text:
    No. 196.
    Fruchtman v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari.denied.

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


text:
    No. 200.
    Jackman et al. v. Bodine et al.
   Süp Ct. N; ’J. Certiorari denied;

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


text:
    No. 207.
    Febre v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 214.
    Western Laundry & Linen Rental Co. et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. • Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 244.
    Czepil v. Tarr et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 293.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied;

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


text:
    No. 303.
    Stevenson v. Carpenter et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 318.
    State Cinema of Pittsfield, Inc. v. Ryan et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 337.
    Tierney v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 351.
    Paddock Pool Builders, Inc., et al. v. George R. Whitten, Jr., Inc., dba Whitten Corp.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 355.
    Jackson et al. v. Dorrier et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 388.
    Safir et al. v. Gibson, Maritime Administrator, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5126.
    Allison v. New Jersey.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5137.
    Warden v. Hocker, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Nev.' Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5141.
    Patterson v. District Court of Oklahoma et al.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5143.
    Langford v. Alabama.
   C. A; 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5170.
    Martinez v. Craven, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5183.
    Rodgers v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5254.
    Yukl v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5259.
    Munroe v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5291.
    Powell v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5322.
    Gill v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5396.
    Williams v. Smith, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5426.
    Chaudron v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 253.
    Wingo, Warden v. Benoit.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 277.
    Turner, Warden v. Lassiter.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis , granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 342.
    Musick v. MacDonald.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for' leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 267.
    Schneckloth, Conservation Center Superintendent, et al. v. Hill.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr, Justice Blackmun are .of thé opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 270.
    Vanderboom et al. v. Sexton et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied..

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


text:
    No. 292.
    Grain Handling Co., Inc. v. Hartnett et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 502.
    Sheehan et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5325.
    Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5380.
    McLean v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5417.
    Meyer v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 340.
    Kirk et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 343.
    New York City Housing Authority et al. v. Escalera et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of respondents Escalera et al. for leave to proceed in forma 'pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 367.
    Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc. v. Hess Shipping Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas a¡nd Mr. Justice Stewart are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 5195.
    Churder v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 401.
    Robertson v. The Sanyo Maru et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 477.
    RKO General, Inc. v. Newmark.
   C. Á. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5095.
    Reams v. Wingo, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Upon representations of- the Attorney General of Kentucky that petitioner now has available an appropriate remedy, certiorari .denied.


text:
    No. 5171.
    Pierre v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5188.
    Lavoie v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5211.
    Luster v. Cooksey.
   C. A. 7th Cir.' Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant petition for certiorari, vacate judgment below, and remand for reconsideration in light of Mulloy v. United States, 398 U. S. 410.


text:
    No. 5346.
    Jackson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. et al.
   C„ A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1522,
    No. 1523,
    No. 1548,
    No. 1554,
    No. 1558,
    No. 1560,
    No. 1568,
    No. 1619,
    No. 1399,
    No. 2066,
    No. 2111,
    No. 2130,
    October Term, 1969.
    October Term, .1969.
    October Term, 1969.,
    October Term, 1969..
    October Term, 1969.
    -October Term, 1969.
    October Term, 1969.
    October Term, 1969.
    Misc., October Term, 1969..
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Misc., October. Term, 1969.
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Adams et al. v. City of Colorado Springs et al., Mosca v. United States, Maiorani v. Kawasaki Kisen K. K., Kobe, et al., Dapper v. Municipal Court, San Diego Judicial District, Zimmerman v. United States et al., Sommer et al. v. United States, Carlough v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Vasilj v. United States, Carter et al. v. United States, Taylor v. Superior Court, County of Riverside, Lopez v. United States, Hardie v. Neville, U. S. District Judge,
   399 U. S. 901;

399 U. S. 911;

399 U. S: 910;

399 U. S, 910;

399 U. S. 911;

399 U. S; 911;

399 U. S. 920;

399 U. S. 928;

399 U. S. 935;

399 U. S. 931;

399 U. S. 932; and

399 U. S: 922. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 81,
    No. 661,
    No. 830,
    No. 1310,
    No. 1590,
    No. 1730,
    October Term, 1969.
    October Term, 1969.
    October Term, 1969.
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Simmons et ux. v. West Haven Housing Authority, Hellenic Lines Ltd. et al. v. Rhoditis, Chambers v. Maroney, Correctional Superintendent, Lee v. Faulkner, Sheriff, Murray v. Murray, Taylor v. California,
   399 U. S. 510;

398 U. S. 306;

399 U. S. 42;

399 U. S. 919;

399 U. S. 902; and

399 U. S. 901. Petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1398,
    No. 1424,
    No. 1459,
    No. 1495,
    No. 1502,
    No. 1183,
    No. 1195,
    No. 1923,
    October Term, 1969.
    October Term, 1969.
    October Term, 1969.
    October Term, 1969.
    October Term, 1969.
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Milsan, Inc., et al., Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. American Aloe Corp., Ruehlmann, Executor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cimini v. United States, McGee v. United States, Higgins v. United States, Lewis v. Kropp, Warden, Brown v. United States,
   398 U. S. 928;

398 U. S. 929;

398 U. S. 950;

398 U. S. 939;

398 U. S. 951;

398 U. S. 279;

398 U. S. 952; and

398 U. S. 941. Petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1932,
    No. 1941,
    No. 1946,
    No. 1994,
    No. 1999,
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Misc., October Term, 1969.-
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Misc.,, October Term, 1969.
    Dedmon v. Craven, Warden, Domer v. United States, Kalec v. Lash, Warden, Carson v. Elrod, Superintendent, Department of Public Welfare, Benson v. United States et al.,
   398 Ul S. 941 ;

398 U. S. 953;

398 U. S. 953; •

398 U. S. 942; and

398 U. ,S. 943. • Petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1508,
    October Term, 1969.
    Powell v. Committee on Admissions and Grievances et al.,
   398 U. S. 951. Petition for rehearing denied.

The Chief Justice, Mr.- Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Black-mun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 1514,
    No. 1520,
    No. 1524,
    No. 531,
    No. 2039,
    No. 2100,
    October Term, 1969.
    October Term, 1969.
    October- Term, 1969.
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Misc., October Term,. 1969.
    Sabino v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al., Horton v. North Carolina, Williams v. Williams, Cook v. United States, Curl v. Burke, Warden, Fletcher v. Waychoff, District Attorney of Greene County, Pennsylvania, et al.,
   398 U. S. 959;

398 U. S. 959;

398 U. S.959;

398 ü. S. 968;

398 U. S. 966; and

398 U. S. .967. Petitions for rehearing, denied.

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


text:
    No. 1340,
    October Term, 1969.
    Gordon v. United States,
   398 U. S. 927. Motion for leave to file petition for. rehearing and remand denied.

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


text:
    No. 1053,
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Terry v. California,
   399 U. S. 911. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 1670,
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    Mears v. Hocker, Warden, et al.,
   399 U. S. 919. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 2038,
    Misc., October Term, 1969.
    White v. Young, U. S. District Judge,
   398 U. S. 949. • Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

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


author: Mr. Justice Black,

text:
    October 13, 1970
    No. -.
    Marcello v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for bail presented to ■ Mr. Justice Black, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Black,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas ' joins,

dissenting.


text:
    No. —.
    No. —:.
    Gerardo et al. v. New Jersey; and Boiardo v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Applications for bail presented to Mr. Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that the applications should be granted.-. Mr. Justice Brennan took'no part in the consideration or decision of these applications. .


text:
    No. 420.
    McDaniel, Superintendent of Schools of Clarke County, et al. v. Barresi et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 804.] Motion of State of Georgia- for reconsideration of denial of. motion for leave to participate in oral argument as .amicus curiae [ante, p. 804] denied.


text:
    October 19, 1970
    No. 704.
    Wood et al. v. Putterman et al.
   Affirmed oh appeal from D. C. Md.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stewart are of the opinion that,, probable jurisdiction should be noted. Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this appeal.

[For earlier, order herein, see ante, p. 816.]


text:
    No. 451.
    Johnson v. State Bar of California et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal, was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 588.
    Poppenheimer et al. v. Tennessee et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Tenn. dismissed. Schackman v. Amebergh, 387 U. S. 427.


text:
    No. 5354.
    Ruderer v. Johnson et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 8th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Motion of appellant to strike scandalous matter denied. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5480.
    Anderson v. Knott Hotels Corp. et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 2d Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Motion to postpone case, denied. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 621,
    October Term, 1969.
    Wiseman et al. v. Massachusetts et al.,
   398 U. S. 960. Respondents requested to file within 30 days a response to. petition for rehearing.


text:
    No. 1385,
    October Term, 1969.
    Hutcherson et al. v. Lehtin et al.,
   399 U. S. 522. Appellees requested to file within- 30 days a response to petition for rehearing.


text:
    No. 43,
    No. 44,
    No. 46,
    No. 47,
    Orig.
    Orig.
    Orig.
    Orig.
    Oregon v. Mitchell, Attorney General; Texas v. Mitchell, Attorney General; United States v. Arizona; and United States v. Idaho.
   Motion of State of Mississippi for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied. [For earlier orders herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 810.]


text:
    No. 73.
    Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 397 U. S. 960.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in support of petitioner granted and 20 minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondent allotted 20 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 77.

    United States v. Weller.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. [Probable jurisdiction postponed, 397 U. S. 985.] Motion of the Solicitor General for additional time for oral argument granted and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Appellee allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 78.

    No. 106.
    Atlantic City Electric Co. et al. v. United States et al. Alabama Power Co. et al. v. United States et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y.; and

Appeal from D. C. D. C. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 398 U. S. 903.] Motion of the Solicitor General for additional time for oral argument granted and 20 additional minutes allotted for argument on behalf of the United States.

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


text:
    No. 88.
    Ramsey et al., dba Leon Nunley Coal Co., et al. v. United Mine Workers of America.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 397 U. S. 1006.] Motion of respondent for enlargement of time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 124.
    Griggs et al. v. Duke Power Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 399 U. S. 926.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae on behalf of petitioners denied.

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


text:
    No. 99.
    Port of Boston Marine Terminal Assn. et al. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic.
   C. A. 1st Cir. [Certiorari granted, 397 U. S. 1035.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in support of petitioner granted and 20 minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondent granted 20 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 113.
    Decker, U. S. District Judge, et al. v. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 397 U. S. 1073.] Motion of petitioners to advance denied. Motion of State Bar of Texas for leave to join in amicus curiae brief of American Bar Assn. granted.

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


text:
    No. 144.
    Griffin et al. v. Breckenridge et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 397 U. S. 1074.] Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in support of petitioners granted and 30 minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondents allotted 30 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 281.
    No. 349.
    Swann et al. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al. v. Swann et al.
   [Certiorari granted, 399 U. S. 926]; and

[Certiorari granted, ante, p. 805.] C. A. 4th Cir. Motion to supplement record granted. Motions of Congress of Racial Equality and Jackson Chamber of Commerce, Inc., et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae in No. 281 granted.


text:
    No. 153.
    Tilton et al. v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Conn. [Probable jurisdiction noted, sub nom. Tilton v. Finch, 399 U. S. 904.] Motion of the Solicitor General for additional time for oral argument on behalf of appellees granted and 30 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Appellants allotted 30 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 154.
    No. 226.
    James et al. v. Valtierra et al. Shaffer v. Valtierra et al.
   [Probable jurisdiction noted, 398 U. S. 949]; and

[Probable jurisdiction noted, 399 U. S. 925.] Appeals from D. C. N. D. Cal. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in support of appellees denied.

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


text:
    No. 301.
    Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 399 U. S. 905.] Motion of petitioner for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 728.
    Hodgson et al. v. Randall et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Minn. Application for a partial stay presented to Mr. Justice Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

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


text:
    No. 5497.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion to defer consideration granted.


text:
    No. 5466.
    Sturm v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 5448.
    Wells v. Craven, Warden.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 5489.
    Jacobs v. Hill, U. S. District Judge.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 345.
    United States v. Freed et al.
   Appeal from D. C. C. D. Cal. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 169.
    Radich v. New York.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. Probable jurisdiction noted.

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


text:
    No. 156.
    Rosenberg, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Yee Chien Woo.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 362.
    McGee v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 338.
    Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of Finney Co. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 5247.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petition.


text:
    No. 5481.
    Schlanger v. Seamans, Secretary of the Air Force, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 146.
    Abex Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 191.
    Sams v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 251.
    California et al. v. Imbler.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 354.
    Ramos v. The Detroit et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 372.
    Wilson et al. v. Blount, Postmaster General, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 381.
    Jenkins v. Florida Bar.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 399.
    Lykes-Youngstown Corp. et al. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 400.
    Zelechower et al. v. Younger, District Attorney of Los Angeles County, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 407.
    Decca Limited v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 428.
    American Surety Co. of New York v. Barrientos et al.
   Sup. Ct. P. R. Certiorari denied. Reported below: — P. R. R. —.


text:
    No. 445.
    Coogan v. Cincinnati Bar Assn.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 458.
    Fifth District Republican Committee v. Michigan Employment Security Commission.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 509.
    Seeburg Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5168.
    Messer v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5419.
    Cunningham v. Brierley, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5433.
    McGrogan v. Brierley, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5438.
    Starkey v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5449.
    Calvillo v. Nelson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5455.
    Bane v. Spencer et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5456.
    Perkins v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5461.
    Hines v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5463.
    Holnagel v. Kropp, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5464.
    Barber v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5465.
    Phillips v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5468.
    Battle v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5469.
    Bright v. Pate, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5472.
    Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5473.
    Norris v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5474.
    Milani v. Pate, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5475.
    Gay v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5479.
    Cleveland v. New Jersey.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5486.
    Floyd v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5488.
    Robertson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5487.
    Pruneda v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5493.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5502.
    Plascencia-Plascencia v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5503.
    Cooper v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5508.
    McKinnon v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5509.
    Lauchli v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 158.
    Ellis et al., Trustees v. MDG Supply, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Hawaii. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 215.
    Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Superior Court of California, County of Shasta (Chisefski et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Motion of National Association of Motor Bus Owners for leave, to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 265.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Clark's Gamble Corp., dba Clark’s Discount Department Store, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion to use record in No. 439, October Term, 1969, granted. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 365.
    No. 368.
    McIntosh v. United States; and Persico v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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

Reported below: 425 F. 2d 1375.


text:
    No. 395.
    Lazarus v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 415.
    United States v. Waterman, Largen & Co., Inc.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Blackmun are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 416.
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Steadman et ux.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Blackmun are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 425.
    Schieffelin & Co. et al. v. United States.
   C. C. P. A. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5121.
    Donaldson v. O'Connor et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motions of Medical Committee for Human Rights, Connecticut Psychologists for Social Action, American Civil Liberties Union, and New York Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied without prejudice to petitioner’s right to apply to appropriate United States District Court for relief.


author: Mr. Justice Brennan,

text:
    No. 5122.
    Chambers v. Cox, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

dissenting.

I dissent. I think we should take this case and decide the .important question it presents of the res judicata effect of a federal habeas court’s determination that evidence used to obtain. a state court conviction was improperly admitted because it was the fruit of an unconstitutional search and seizure.

Petitioner was convicted in a Virginia state court of unlawful possession of narcotics seized from his person after his arrest when he entered the apartment of another during a lawful police search of the apartment for narcotics. After exhausting state remedies, he sought federal habeas relief, contending that his mere entry into the apartment provided no probable cause for his arrest and the subsequent search of his person. The parties declined the District Court’s offer of a hearing to augment the trial record and stipulated that it contained all the “necessary” facts. The District Court determined on the state record that the police did not have probable cause for petitioner’s arrest, and therefore that the narcotics seized from his person had been improperly admitted in- evidence. The court ordered petitioner discharged if not retried by the State within 30 days.

Virginia took no appeal from this judgment. Instead, it proceeded to retry petitioner. Over petitioner’s objection, the State was allowed to repair the deficiency in its probable-cause case by introducing other evidence available to it but not offered at the first state trial. With the State’s case thus buttressed, the Virginia trial court once again found probable cause for petitioner’s arrest, and admitted the seized narcotics in evidence.

When the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia de- ; dined to hear his appeal, petitioner filed the present ap-T plication for' federal habeas corpus, contending that the earlier federal habéas judgment was res judicata on the issue of probable cause. The District Court, however, viewed the sole question before it as “whether the retrial . . . produced additional evidence weighing on probable cause to lend propriety to the arrest and the subsequent search.” ' Answering that question in the affirmative, the District Court denied the application in an unreported opinion and the Court of Appeals affirmed,

“The doctrine of res judicata reflects the refusal of law to tolerate needless litigation. Litigation is needless if, by fair process, a controversy has once gone, through the courts to conclusion. . . And it has gone through, if issues that were or could have been dealt with in an earlier litigation are raised anew between the same parties.” Angel v. Bullington, 330 U. S. 183, 192-193 (1947). Although this Court has decided the question of the application of this principle in cases of the denial of habeas relief, see Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1 (1963), the res judicata effect of a habeas judgment granting the writ remains a debatable question here. The common law recognized that the reasons which precluded the application of res judicata to a denial of the writ, were not relevant when a court granted the writ: a habeas judgment granting the application constituted res judicata as to the illegality of the custody and of all issues of law and fact necessarily involved in that result. See, e. g., McConologue’s Case, 107 Mass. 154, 170-171 (1871). At least one opinion in this Court seems to adopt the same rule: in Collins v. Loisel, 262 U. S. 426, 430 (1923), Mr. Justice Brandeis, writing for a unanimous Court in a habeas proceeding instituted by a person being held for extradition, said,

“a judgment in habeas corpus proceedings discharging a prisoner held for preliminary examination may operate as res judicata. But the judgment is res judicata only that he was at the time illegally in custody, and of the issues of law and fact necessarily involved in that result.” (Italics supplied in part.)

However, federal and state courts have given varying scope to this pronouncement. Thus, considerable confusion (as evidenced by the present case), has developed over the appropriate scope of the principle of res judicata in casés in which the prisoner obtains habeas relief, and over the issues to which it ought properly to apply if it. is applicable. Too wide an interpretation of the habeas judgment’s scope might deter a State from retrying a prisoner who should properly be brought to account for his actions. On the other hand, failure to give res judicata effect to habeas judgments determining as in the present cáse specific factual issues, may .seriously undermine the writ: a State would have no incentive fully to litigate a question in the habeas proceeding- if it could always relitigate the question on retrial. Moreover, in the present case, the State offered no reason for its failure to adduce at the first proceeding evidence concedédly available at that time, No policy is served — and overburdened. judicial resources are wasted — by needless relitigation of issues already fairly decided.

This case thus presents an issue of substantial importance. in the administration. of federal habeas corpus jurisdiction. It is an issue that will not go away, and we should take this case and decide it now: •


text:
    No. 5471.
    Brooks v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5148.
    Braswell v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan join,

dissenting.

I would grant certiorari'in this case to hold that Florida cannot enforce a mere proced ’ral rule by denying a criminal defendant his constitutional right to present witnesses on his own behalf. In this assault trial, the defendant asked the judge to invoke the “Witness Rule,” directing prospective witnesses “not [to] permit anyone to discuss [the case] in your presence.” The judge invoked the rule but instructed only those witnesses who were then present. A defense, witness who arrived late missed the instruction, and, unknown to the defendant or his counsel, heard some of the prosecution’s evidence. When the defense later attempted to call this witness to support the defendant’s testimony that the alleged assault was an act of self-defense; the prosecutor objected to the competency of the witness because he had violated the “Witness Rule.” Over the defendant’s objection that the witness would give material testimony in the defendant’s favor, the judge refused to permit the witness to testify.

While the “Witness Rule” has a valid purpose and can contribute to the search, for truth, a breach of the rule cannot be used to deny a criminal defendant his constitutional right to obtain and present witnesses in his favor. U: S. Const., Arndt. VI; cf. Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14 (1967). A simple rule of courtroom “fairness” has been misused to destroy a sacred constitutional right.

I would grant certiorari in this case and reverse the conviction below so that the defendant might have the - right to present his. side of the story.


text:
    No. 457.
    Lash, Warden v. Smith.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1187,
    October Term, 1968.
    Persico et al. v. United States,
   395 U. S. 911. Joint motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1518,
    October Term, 1969.
    Huie v. Board of Commissioners of the Alabama State Bar,
   399 U. S. 905. Motions for The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Black to recuse themselves denied. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    October 20, 1970
    No. 505.
    United States v. Fix.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 5374.
    Cashaw v. Woods, Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 5526.
    Stephens v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    October 23, 1970
    No. —.
    Meck v. Commanding Officer, Valley Forge General Hospital, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Application for stay of deployment and injunction pending appeal presented to Mr. Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court, granted.


text:
    No. —.
    Baker et al., Trustees of Property of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. Pennsylvania et al.
   D. C. W. D. Pa. Application for stay of interlocutory injunction pending appeal presented to Mr. Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    October 26, 1970
    No. 5811.
    Anderson v. American Broadcasting Co. et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Harlan, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 1109,
    October Term, 1968.
    Weed v. Bilbrey et al.,
   394 U. S. 1018, 395 U. S. 971, 397 U. S. 930. Respondents requested to file response within 30 days to motion for leave to file third petition for rehearing.

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


text:
    No. 31,
    Orig.
    Utah v. United States.
    [For previous actions, see, e. g., 393 U. S. 921 and 394 U. S. 89.]
   Report of Special Master received and ordered filed. Exceptions, if any, with supporting briefs, shall be filed within 60 days.


text:
    No. 121.
    Mayberry v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. [Certiorari granted, 397 U. S. 1020.] Motion of Carol Mary Los for leave to participate in oral argument, pro hac vice, granted.


text:
    No. 420.
    McDaniel, Superintendent of Schools, et al. v. Barresi et al.
   [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 804.] Motion of respondents for leave to file a brief after argument granted.


text:
    No. 712.
    Triangle Improvement Council et al. v. Ritchie, Commissioner, State Road Commission of West Virginia, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for injunction pending disposition of petition for writ of certiorari presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

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


text:
    No. 799.
    Cocanower v. Marston, Recorder for Maricopa County, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Ariz. Motion to advance and expedite hearing denied.


text:
    No. 825.
    New York v. Cooper, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion to expedite consideration of petition for certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 882.
    Hadnott et al. v. Amos, Secretary of State of Alabama, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Ala. Application for continuance of stay presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

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


text:
    No. 5875.
    Anderson v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y. Motion to advance denied. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Harlan, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 465.
    Sayles v. Wiegand et al.
   Motion to dispense with printing motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus granted. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 5520.
    Johnson v. Michigan et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 507.
    California Department of Human Resources Development et al. v. Java et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 5714.
    Jenness et al. v. Fortson, Secretary of State of Georgia.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ga. Motion to advance denied. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 464.
    No. 469.
    Gainesville Utilities Department et al. v. Florida Power Corp.; and Federal Power Commission v. Florida Power Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of American Public Power Assn. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 164 granted. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 425 F. 2d 1196.


text:
    No. 248.
    No. 610.
    Indiana Revenue Board et al. v. Indiana ex rel. City of Indianapolis et al.; and Indiana Revenue Board et al. v. Indiana ex rel. City of Indianapolis et al.
   App. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 248, — Ind. App. —, 253 N. E. 2d 725; No. 610, — Ind. App. —, 255 N. E. 2d 833.


text:
    No. 385.
    No. 522.
    Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. Figueroa de Arroyo et al.; and Figueroa de Arroyo et al. v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co. et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 425 F. 2d 281.


text:
    No. 421.
    Trefina, A. G. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 462.
    Barr Rubber Products Co. v. Sun Rubber Co.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 483.
    Almstead v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 485.
    Hawthorne v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 492.
    Gallagher et ux. v. Wilbour et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 494.
    Kastenbaum v. Florida Bar.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 499.
    Grinnell Corp. et al. v. Russ Togs, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 501.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 503.
    Hudson Oil Company of Mobile, Inc. v. McLeod et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 506.
    Daly v. Daly.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 510.
    Muller et al. v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 511.
    Alfred M. Lewis, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 512.
    Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 516.
    Weber et al. v. Hiatt.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 519.
    St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Nivens.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5500.
    No. 5645.
    Leyvas v. United States; and Sendejas v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 428 F. 2d 1040.


text:
    No. 5510.
    MacDonald v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5511.
    Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5512.
    Principe v. Keller, District Attorney of San Diego County, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5517.
    Orme v. Field, Men's Colony Superintendent, et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5521.
    Fairley v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5523.
    Li v. Rosenberg, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5524.
    Pursley v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5525.
    Miller v. Pleasure et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5527.
    Stebbins v. George Washington University.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5528.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5530.
    Fortman v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5534.
    Bennett v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5535.
    Moore v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5536.
    McKnight v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5538.
    Lockhart v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5541.
    Tillery v. Eyman, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5542.
    Hall v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5544.
    Junger v. Hertz, Neumark & Warner.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5545.
    Pennington v. Catherwood, Industrial Commissioner of New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5546.
    Taylor et al. v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5548.
    Rios v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5550.
    Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5552.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5556.
    Campbell v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5557.
    Lima v. Chrysler Corp.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5558.
    Romeo v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5563.
    Sharlow v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5564.
    Savage v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5568.
    Meeks v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5569.
    Bennett v. Maryland et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5572.
    Huckabay v. Woodmansee, Judge, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5573.
    Cox v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5575.
    Gelb v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5576.
    Houle v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5579.
    Sullivan v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5585.
    Ward v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 296.
    Mitchell et al. v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice White are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 304.
    Bak et al. v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice White are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 419.
    McDougald v. North Carolina.
   Gen. Ct. Justice, Super. Ct. Div., Cumberland County. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 472.
    Elliott v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 513.
    Beaumont v. Aussenheimer et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1348,
    October Term, 1969.
    Pacific National Insurance Co. v. United States,
   398 U. S. 937. Motion for leave to, file petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1380,
    October Term, 1969.
    Horelick et al. v. New York,
   398 U. S. 939. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    October 31, 1970
    No. -.
    Beytagh et al. v. Noble et al.
   D. C. N. D. Ind. Application for temporary and conditional injunctive relief presented to-Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    November 3, 1970
    No. 752.
    Standard Industries, Inc. v. Tigrett Industries, Inc., et al.
   C. A.' 6th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 5382.
    Jones v. Procunier, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    November 6, 1970
    No. 729.
    Hodgson v. Minnesota.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    November 9, 1970
    No. 254.
    Parish School Board of Parish of St. Charles et al. v. Stewart et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. E. D. La., City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U. S. 204.

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


text:
    No. 540.
    Bower, State Hospital Superintendent v. Vaughan et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Ariz. Motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.

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


text:
    No. 679.
    Friedman v. O’Rourke et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 816.]


text:
    No. 5387.
    Smith v. Iowa Liquor Control Commission.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Iowa 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. 5531.
    Ruderer v. Gerken et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 8th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Motion of appellant to strike scandalous matter denied. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of .certiorari, certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5652.
    Lehman v. California.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Cal. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. —.
    Annunziata v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Application. for bail presented to Mr. Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

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


text:
    No. 71.
    Abate et al. v. Mundt et al.
   Ct. App. N.' Y. [Certiorari granted, 397 U. S. 904.] Motion of petitioners for leave for three attorneys to participate in oral agreement granted.


text:
    No. 203.
    McGautha v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. [Certiorari granted, 398 U. S. 936.] Motion for appointment of counsel to represent petitioner granted. Motion of Luke McKissack for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. 42,
    -Orig.
    Massachusetts v. Laird, Secretary of Defense.
   Motion of Constitutional Lawyers’Committee on Undeclared War for leave to file supplemental brief as amicus curiae granted. Motion of John M. Wells et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae, to participate in oral argument, or alternative motion to be named as parties plaintiff, denied. Motion for leave tó file bill of complaint denied.

Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent. They would set the latter motion for argument on questions of standing and justiciability.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

This motion was filed by the Commonwealth . of Massachusetts against the Secretary of Defense, a citizen of another State. It is brought pursuant to a mandate contained in an act of the Massachusetts Legislature. 1970 Laws, ,c. 174. Massachusetts seeks to obtain an • adjudication of the constitutionality of the United States’ participation in the Indochina war. It requests that the United States’ participation be declared “unconstitutional in that it was not initially authorized or subsequently ratified by Congressional declaration”; it asks that the Secretary of Defense be enjoined "froiD carrying out, issuing or causing to be issued any further orders which would increase the present level of United States troops in Indochina”; and it asks that, if appropriate congressional action is not forthcoming within 90 days of this Court’s decree, the Secretary of Defense be enjoined “from carrying out, issuing, or causing to be issued any further orders directing any inhabitant of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Indochina for the purpose of participating in combat or supporting combat troops in the Vietnam war.” Today this Court denies leave to file the complaint. I dissent.

The threshold issues for granting leave to file a complaint in this case are standing and justiciability. I believe that Massachusetts has standing and the controversy is justiciable. At the very least, however, it is apparent that the issues are not so clearly foreclosed as to justify a summary denial of leave, to file.

STANDING

In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (hereafter Mellon), the Court held that a State lacked standing to challenge, as parens patriae, a federal grant-in-aid program’ under which the Federal Government was allegedly usurping powers reserved to the States. It was said in Mellon:

“[T]he citizens of Massachusetts are also citizens of the United States. It cannot be conceded that a State, as parens patriae, .may institute judicial proceedings to protect citizens of the United States from the operation of the statutes thereof. While the State, under some circumstances, may sue in that capacity for the protection of its citizens (Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208, 241), it is no part of its duty or power to enforce their rights in respect of their relations with the Federal Government. In that field it is the United States, and not the State, which represents them as parens patriae, when such representation becomes' appropriate; and to the former, and not to the latter, they must look for such protective measures as flow from that status.” Id., at 485-486.

The ■ Solicitor General argues that Mellon stands, as a bar to this suit.

Yet the ruling of the Court in that case is not dis-positive of this one. The opinion states: “We need not go so far as to say that a State may never intervene by suit to protect its citizens against any form of enforcement of unconstitutional acts of Congress; but we are clear that the right to do so does not arise here.” Id., at 485. Thus the case did not announce a per se rule to bar all suits against the Federal Government as parens patriae, and a closer look at the bases of the opinion is necessary to determine the limits on its applicability.-

Mellon relates to an Act of Congress signed by the Executive, a distinction noted in other original actions. In Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U. S. 439, we stated, “[t]his is not a suit like those in Massachusetts v. Mellon, and Florida v. Mellon, supra, [273 U. S. 12] where a State sought to protect her citizens from the operation of federal statutes,” Id., at 446-447.

Massachusetts attacks, no federal statute. In fact, the basis of Massachusetts’ complaint is the ¿bsence of. congressional action.

It is said that the Federal Government “represents” the citizens. Here the complaint is that only one representative of the people, the Executive, has acted and the other representatives of the. citizens have not acted, although, it is argued, the Constitution provides that they must act before an overseas “war” can be conducted.

There was a companion case to Mellon in which the Court held that a taxpayer lacked standing to challenge the same ■ federal spending statute. Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (hereafter Frothingham). Two years ago we reconsidered Frothingham and found at least part of the ruling could- not stand the test of time. Concurring in the result, I stated:

“Frothingham, decided in 1923, was in the heyday of substantive due .process, when courts were sitting in judgment on thé wisdom or reasonableness of legislation. The claim in Frothingham was that a federal regulatory Act dealing with maternity deprived the plaintiff of property without due process of law. When the Court used substantive due process to determine the wisdom or reasonableness, of legislation, it was indeed transforming itself into the Council of Revision which, was rejected by the Constitutional Convention. It was' that judicial attitude, not the theory of standing to sue rejected in Frothingham, that involved ‘important hazards for the continued effectiveness of the federal judiciary/ to borrow a phrase from my Brother Hablan. A contrary result in Frothingham in that setting might well have accentuated an ominous trend to judicial supremacy.”' Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 107.

In Flast we held that a taxpayer had standing to challenge a federal spending program, if he showed that Congress breached a specific limitation on its taxing and spending power. ' As Mr. Justice Stewart stated in his concurring opinion, “[t]he present case is thus readily distinguishable from Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, where the taxpayer did not rely on an explicit constitutional prohibition but instead questioned the scope of the powers delegated to the national legislature by Article I of the Constitution.” 392 U. S., at 114.

The erosion of Frothingham does not, of course, necessarily mean that the authority of Mellon has been affected. But if the current debate over Frothingham “suggests that ■ we should undertake a fresh examination of the limitations upon standing to sue,” 392 U. S., at 94/ then surely the erosion of Frothingham suggests it is time to re-examine its companion case.

Mellon, too, has been eroded by time. In the spring •of .1963 the Governor of Alabama moved for leave to file a complaint to prevent the President from using troops in Birmingham during civil rights marches there. Under the Solicitor General's reading of Mellon Alabama would have lacked standing to challenge such .an exercise of presidential authority. The Court denied Alabama relief, not because of Mellon, but because:

“In essence the papers show ho more, than that the President has made ready to exercise the authority conferred upon him by 10 U. S. C. § 333 by alerting and stationing military personnel in the Birmingham area. Such purely preparatory measures and their alleged adverse general effects upon the plaintiffs afford no basis for the granting of any relief.” Alabama v. United States, 373 U. S. 545.

In South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, Melton, was further weakened. In that case we denied-standi^ g to South Carolina to assert, claims under the Bill oi Attainder Claúse of Art. I and. the principle of separation of powers which were regárded “only as protections for individual persons and private groups, those who are peculiarly vulnerable to nonjudicial determinations of guilt.” 383 U. S., at 324. Yet we went on to allow South Carolina to challenge the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as beyond congressional power under the -Fifteenth Amendment.

The main interest of South Carolina was in the continuing operation of its election laws. Massachusetts’ claim to standing in this case is certainly as strong as South Carolina’s was in the Katzenbach case.

Massachusetts complains,, as -parens patriae, that its citizens are drafted and sent to fight in an unconstitutional overseas war. Their lives are in jeopardy. Their liberty is impaired.

Furthermore, the basis on which Flast distinguished Frothingham 'is also present ■ here. The allegation in both Mellon and Frothingham was that Congress had exceeded the general powers delegated to it by Art. I, § 8, and invaded the reserved powers of the States under the Tenth Amendment. The claim was not specific; but, as Flast held, if a taxpayer can allege spending violates a specific constitutional limitation, then he has standing. Here Massachusetts points to a specific provision of the Constitution. Congress by Art. I, § 8, has the power “To declare War.” Does not that make this case comparable to Flast?

It has been settled, at least since 1901, that “if the-health and comfort of the inhabitants of a State are threatened, the State is the proper party to represent and defend them,” Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208, 241, in an original action in this Court. And see Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, 237-238; Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553, 591-592; North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U. S. 365, 372-376; Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U. S. 439, 450-451. Those cases involved injury to inhabitants of one State by water or air pollution of another State, by interference with navigation, by economic losses caused by an out-of-state agency, and the like. The harm to citizens of Massachusetts suffered by being drafted for a war are certainly of no less a magnitude. Massachusetts would clearly seem to have standing as parens patriae to represent, as alleged in its complaint, its male citizens being drafted for overseas combat in Indochina.

JUSTICIABILITY

A question that is “political” is opposed to one that is “justiciable.” In reviewing the dimensions of the “political” question we said in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217:

“Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a- political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the'impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; ór an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”

1. A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department. At issue here is the phrase in Art. I, §8, cl. 11: “To declare War.” Congress definitely has that power. The Solicitor General argues that only Congress can determine whether it has declared war. He states, “ ‘To declare War’ includes a power to determine, free of judicial interference, the form which its authorization of hostilities will take.” This may be correct. But, as we stated. in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, the question of a textually demonstrable commitment and “what is the scope of such commitment are questions [this Court] must resolve for the first time in this case.” Id., at 521. (emphasis added). It may well be that it is for Congress, and Congress alone, to determine the form of its authorization, but if that is the case we should make that determination only after full briefs on the merits and oral argument.

. 2. A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue. The standards that aré applicable are hot elusive. The case is not one where the Executive is repelling a sudden attack. The present Indochina “war” has gone on for six years. The question is whether the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a declaration of war or whether other Acts of Congress were its equivalent.

3. The. impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a hind clearly for nonjudicial discretion. In Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 139 (concurring opinion), it was stated that “neither can the President, in war more than in peace, intrude upon the proper authority of Congress . ...” The issue in this case is not whether we ought to fight a war in Indochina, but whether the Executive can authorize it without congressional authorization. This is not a case where we would have to determine the wisdom of any policy.

4. The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government. The Solicitor General argues that it would show disrespect of the Executive to go behind his statements and determine his authority to act in these circumstances. Both Powell and the Steel Seizure Case (Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579), however, demonstrate that the duty of this Court is to interpret the Constitution, and in the latter case we did go behind an executive order to determine his authority. As. Mr. Justice Frankfurter stated in the Steel Seizure Case:

“To .deny inquiry into the President’s po.wer in a case like this, because of the damage to the public interest to be feared from upsetting its exercise ' by him, would in effect always preclude inquiry into challenged power, which presumably only avowed great public interest brings into action. And so, with the utmost unwillingness, with every desire to avoid judicial inquiry into the powers and duties of the other two branches of the government, I cannot escape consideration of the legality of Execu^ tive Order No. 10340.
“Marshall’s admonition that ‘it is a constitution we are expounding’ [McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407] is especially relevant when , the Court is required to give legal sanctions to an underlying principle of the Constitution — that of separation of powers.” 343 U. S., at 596-597 (concurring opinion).

It is far more important to be respectful to the Constitution than to a coordinate branch of government.

5. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made. This test is essentially a reference to a commitment of a problem and its solution to a coordinate branch of government — a matter not involved here.

6. The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments of government on one question. Once again this relates back to whether the problem and its solution are committed to a given branch of government.

We have never ruled, I believe, that when the Federal Government takes a person by the neck and submits him to punishment, imprisonment, taxation, or to some ordeal, the complaining person may not be heard in court. The rationale in cases such as the present is that government cannot take life, liberty, or property of the individual and escape adjudication by the courts of the legality of its action.

That is the heart of this case. It does not concern the wisdom of fighting in Southeast Asia. Likewise no question of whether the conflict is either just or necessary is present. We are asked instead ■ whether the Executive' has power, absent a congressional declaration of war, to commit Massachusetts citizens to armed' hostilities on foreign soil. Another way of putting the question is whether under our Constitution presidential wars are permissible. Should that question be answered in the negative we would then have to determine whether Congress has declared war. That question which Massachusetts presents is in my view justiciable.

It is said that “the notion has persisted, despite the results in Baker v. Carr and Powell v. McCormack, [395 U. S. 486] ... that there is a means for the Court to avoid deciding any case or issue upon the basis of a broad, highly general, and almost entirely discretionary principle of nondecision.” Tigar, Judicial Power, The “Political Question Doctrine,” and Foreign Relations, 17 ü. C. L. A. L. Rev. 1135, 1163 (1970), Yet no such discretionary principle, if germane to our problem, is applicable here.

“The war power of the United States, like its other powers. ... is subject to applicable constitutional limitations.” Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U. S. 146, 156. No less than the war power: — the greatest leveler of them all — is thé power of the"Commander in Chief subject to constitutional limitations. That was the crux of the Steel Seizure Case. Concurring in the judgment in that case, Mr. Justice Clark stated: “I conclude that where Congress hasTaid down specific procedures to deal with the type of .crisis confronting the- President, he must follow those procedures in meeting the crisis .... I cannot sustain the seizure in question because . . . Congress had [sic] prescribed methods to be followed, by the President . . . .” 343 U. S., at 662. If the President must follow procedures prescribed by Congress, it follows a fortiori that he must follow procedures prescribed by the Constitution.

This Court has previously faced issues of presidential war making. The legality of Lincoln’s blockade, was considered in the Prize Cases, 2 Black 635, and although the Court narrowly split in supporting the President’s position, the split was on the merits, not on whether the claim was justiciable. And even though that war was the Civil War and not one involving an overseas expedition, the. decision was 5 to 4.

In the Steel Seizure Case members of this Court wrote seven opinions and each reached the merits of the Executive’s seizure. In that cáse, as here, the issue related to the President’s powers as Commander in Chief and the fact that all nine Justices decided the case on the merits and construed the powers of a coordinate branch at a time of extreme emergency should be instructive. In that case we said:

“It is clear that if the President had authority to issue the order he did, it must be found in some provision of the Constitution. And it is not claimed that express constitutional language grants this power to the President. The contention is that presidential power should be implied from the aggregate of his powers under the Constitution. Par-' ticular reliance is placed on provisions in Article II which say that ‘The executive Power shall be vested in a President . . that ‘he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’; and that he ‘shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.’
“The order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President’s military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Gov-, ernment attempts to do so by citing a number of cases upholding broad powers in military commanders engaged in day-to-day fighting in a theater of war. Such cases need not concern us here. Even . though ‘theater of war’ be an expanding concept, we cannot with faithfulness to our constitutional system hold that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power as such to . take possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. This is a job for the Nation’s lawmakers, not for its military authorities.” 343 U. S., at 587.

If we determine that the Indochina conflict is unconstitutional because it lacks a congressional declaration of war, the Chief Executive is free to seek one, as was President Truman free to seek congressional approval after ' our Steel Seizure decision.

There is, of course, a difference between this case ánd the Prize Cases and the Steel Seizure Case. In those cases a private party was asserting a wrong to him: his property was being taken and he demanded a determina- . tion of the legality of the taking. Here the lives and liberties of Massachusetts citizens are in jeopardy. Certainly the Constitution gives no greater protection to property than to life and liberty. It might be argued that the authority in the Steel Seizure Case was not textually apparent in the Constitution, while the power of the Commander in Chief to commit troops is obvious and therefore a different determination on justiciability is needed. .The Prize Cases, however, involved Lincoln’s exercise of power in ordering a blockade by virtue of his powers as the Commander in Chief.

Since private parties — represented by Massachusetts as parens patriae — are involved in this case, the teaching of the Prize Cases and the Steel Seizure Case is that their claims are justiciable.

The Solicitor General urges that no effective remedy can be formulated. He correctly points out enforcing or supervising injunctive relief would involve immense complexities and difficulties. But there is- no requirement that we. issue an injunction. Massachusetts seeks declaratory relief as well as injunctive relief. In Baker v. Carr we stated that we must detemine whether “the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined, and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially molded.” 369 U. S., at 198. The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201, provides that “any court of the United States .,. may declare the rights . . . of any interested party . . . whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” It may well be that even declaratory relief would be inappropriate respecting many of the numerous issues involved if the Court held that the war were unconstitutional. I restrict this opinion to the question of the propriety of a declaratory judgment that no Massachusetts man can be taken against his will and made to serve in the war. Powell involved just one man while this case involves large numbers of men. But that goes only to the mechanical task of making any remedy granted available to all members of a large class.

Today we deny a hearing to a State which attempts to determine whether it is constitutional to require its citizens to fight in a foreign war absent a congressional declaration of war. . Three years ago we refused to hear a case involving draftees who sought to prevent their shipment overseas. Mora v. McNamara, 128 U. S. App. D. C. 297, 387 F. 2d 862, cert. denied, 389 U. S. 934 (1967). The question of an. unconstitutional war is neither academic nor “political.” This case has raised the question in an adversary setting. It should be settled here and now.

I would set the motion for leave to file down, for argument and decide the merits only after full argument.

       An early draft of the Constitution vested in Congress the power to “make” war rather than the power to “declare” war. The change from “make” to “declare” was intended to authorize the President the power to repel sudden attacks and to manage, as Comíüander in Chief, any war declared by Congress. The change was not intended to give the President power to initiate hostilities and commit troops in war at his own will. The Framers were afraid' of unlimited executive power and “resolved to so frame the ‘ Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.” A. Lincoln as quoted in E. Corwin, The President: Office & Powers, 1787-1957, p. 451 (4th ed. 1957). See generally Note,.Congress, the President, and the Power to Commit Forces to Combat, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 1771 (1968).

       The majority in Milligan stated: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.” 4 Wall., at 120-121.

       “When all is said and done, one is inclined to think that a rigid constitutional frame is on the whole preferable even if it serves no better purpose than to embarrass an overactive Executive.” G. .Hausner, Individual Rights in the Courts of Israel, International Lawyers’ Convention in Israel 201, 228 '(1958).

       The classic political questions case is Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1, growing out of the Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island. That State had been unaffected by the constitutional changes during the Revolutionary War and when Connecticut acquired a new constitution in 1818, Rhode Island was the only State which retained its original colonial charter as fundamental-law. The charter government was malapportioned and required ownership of $134 of real property for voting purposes.
      From the early 1820’s on there was - agitation for a new constitution in Rhode Island. Finally one constitution put to the “voters” was passed. A “people’s” convention on November 18, 1841, put forth a new constitution with a Bill of Rights, better apportionment, and white manhood suffrage. Under the voting' requirements established by that constitution, all white adult males were allowed to vote for or against the “people’s” constitution. A majority of the voters ratified the constitution. Following the ratification, elections were held. Rhode Island then had two governments, one under the “people’s” constitution, the other under the original charter. The “people’s” government had a quick legislative session and did not attempt to change either the judiciary or the administrative ofiicers of the State. On June 26, 1842, the charter governor finally proclaimed martial law to establish his authority. Luther v. Borden arose out of Borden’s attempt pursuant .to instructions. to arrest Luther. Luther brought action in the federal courts for trespass and Borden defended his actions as taken under martial law, lawfully proclaimed. Judge Story refused to give Luther’s requested jury instructions, that the • “people’s” constitution was in full for,ce in June. 1842 because “a majority of the free white male citizens of Rhode Island, of twenty-one years and upwards, had a right to reassume the powers of government and establish a written constitution; and that, having so exercised such right, the pre-existing charter government became null and void.” The case then went to the Supreme Court and, faced with the question of which of the two governments was the lawful one, the Court held that determination was a political question, not for judicial determination — that the political question was for Rhode Island to resolve or for Congress under Art. IV, § 4, of the Constitution, 7 How., at 38-43.
      Dorr, who had been the governor under the “people’s” constitution, was tried and convicted of treason against the State in early 1844. In January he was offered a legislative pardon if he would take an oath affirming support for. the government in power. He refused since he believed the “people’s” constitution was still binding. In June 1845, he was unconditionally pardoned under a new governor. Finally, in February 1854, the legislature reversed and annulled Dorr’s conviction. For a history of the Dorr Rebellion, see A. Mowry, The Dorr War (1970).


text:
    No. 573.
    Kirk, Governor of Florida, et al. v. Hargrave et al.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Fla. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 5161.
    Johnson v. Louisiana.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. La. Motion of appellant' for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted:


text:
    No. 569.
    No. 570.
    Earley v. DiCenso et al.; and Robinson, Commissioner of Education of Rhode Island, et al. v. DiCenso et al.
   Appeals from D. C. R. I. Probable jurisdiction noted. Cases consolidated and a total of 1% hours allotted for oral argument. Cases set for oral argument immediately following No. 89 [Lemon v. Kurtzman, probable jurisdiction noted, 397 U. S. 1034] and No. 153 [Tilton v. Finch, probable jurisdiction noted, 399 U. S. 904]. Reported below: 316 F. Supp. 112.


text:
    No. 544.
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lincoln Savings & Loan Assn.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certi-orari granted.


text:
    No. 336.
    Nelson, Warden v. O’Neil.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and .certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 5029.
    Romontio v. United States.
   .C. A. 10th ■Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 5338.
    Apodaca et al. v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certi-orari granted.


text:
    No. 339.
    Slakman v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 525.
    Cabbler et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 527.
    Smith et al. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 528.
    Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certi-orari denied.


text:
    No. 529.
    W. M. Webb, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 530.
    Martin et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 531.
    Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union No. 171 v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 532.
    Morgan v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 533.
    Southern Stevedoring & Contracting Co. v. D/S Ove Skou.
   C.' A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 535.
    Wallace v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 539.
    Louisiana Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 546.
    Wong Pak Yan et al. v. Rinaldi, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. Á. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 537.
    Snyder v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 550.
    Southern Pacific Transport Co. v. Shannon.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 551.
    Avey et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 552.
    Standard Forge & Axle Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 5th Cir; Certi-orari-denied.


text:
    No. 554.
    The Oriental Inventor v. Dillon.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 556.
    Sacco, aka Rosselli v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 558.
    Close v. Lederle et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 559.
    No. 731.
    Callahan Mining Corp. et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Callahan Mining Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. ■ Certi-orari denied. Reported below: 428 F. 2d 721.


text:
    No. 560.
    City of Chattanooga et al. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 562.
    Bailes, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. First National Bank of Mobile.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 563.
    Universal Cigar Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 564.
    Greater Lafourche Port Commission v. Tenneco, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 566.
    Morison v. General Motors Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 568.
    Hoffman v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 571.
    Jacksonville Terminal Co. v. Hodge, Administratrix.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied^


text:
    No. 572.
    Cousins v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 575.
    Hayney et al. v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 580.
    Makekau et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 581.
    Panagiotopoulos v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied!


text:
    No. 585.
    Cooper Agency v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5154.
    Bellomy et al. v. Union Concrete Pipe Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5134.
    Campbell v. California Department of Corrections et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5165.
    Mosley v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5198.
    Lucas v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5261.
    Higgins v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. . Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5270.
    Martinez v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5345.
    Woods v. Kropp, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari deniéd.


text:
    No. 5351.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C..A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5383.
    Gresham v. Smith, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5454.
    Williams v. Perini, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.