author: Per Curiam. Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    MITCHELL et al. v. DONOVAN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA, et al.
    No. 726.
    Argued April 21, 1970
    Decided June 15, 1970

      Lynn S. Costner argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Melvin L. Wulf and Eleanor Holmes Norton.

      Richard H. Kyle, Solicitor General of Minnesota, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Douglas M. Head, Attorney General, pro se, Arne L. Schoeller, Chief Deputy Attorney General, James M. Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, and John R. Kene-fick, Special Assistant Attorney General.
   Per Curiam.

The appellants are the 1968 Communist Party candidates for President and Vice President of the United States, various Minnesota voters who alleged a desire to vote for these candidates, and the Communist Parties of the United States and of Minnesota. The appellant candidates obtained petitions containing the requisite number of names and asked the Secretary of State of Minnesota to place them on the ballot for the 1968 election. The Secretary denied the request, relying upon an opinion by the Attorney General of the State to the effect that placing Communist Party candidates on the ballot would violate the Federal Communist Control Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 775, 50 U. S. C. §§841-842, which declares that the Communist Party “should be outlawed,” and purports to strip it of all “rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof . . . .”

The appellants brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking a declaration that the Communist Control Act was constitutionally invalid and praying for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction requiring the Secretary to include the names of the appellant candidates on the November 1968 ballot. Because of the appellants’ request for injunctive relief based upon a claim that a federal statute was unconstitutional, a three-judge District Court was impaneled pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2282. The three-judge court noted that time was short before the election; that the equities favored the appellants; that the United States had taken the position in an amicus brief that the Communist Control Act did not bar the placement of Communist Party candidates upon the ballot; and that if the Act did apply in the manner asserted by the State, there would be “grave doubts” as to its constitutionality. Accordingly, without deciding the merits of the appellants’ claims, the court ordered that the names of the appellant candidates be placed on the November 1968 ballot. 290 F. Supp. 642. The candidates received the votes of 415 Minnesotans in that election.

After the election, the appellants moved to amend the complaint, alleging that the Communist Party intended to run candidates in future elections in Minnesota and, on information and belief, that Minnesota would adhere to its position that the Communist Control Act barred placing these candidates on the ballot. The District Court allowed the amendment of the complaint. It held that the prayer for injunctive relief, which referred only to the 1968 election and requested no injunction as to future conduct, had been rendered moot by the passing of that election. As to the prayer for a declaratory judgment striking down the Communist Control Act, the court found no present case or controversy. In the court’s view it was not sufficiently certain that the Communist Party would run candidates in the future or that Minnesota would adhere to its construction of the federal statute, to take the case out of the realm of the hypothetical. It therefore dismissed the complaint. 300 F. Supp. 1145.

The appellants brought a direct appeal to this Court under 28 IJ. S. C. § 1253, which provides:

“Except as otherwise provided by law, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.”

The appellees moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order complained of was not one “granting or denying ... an interlocutory or permanent injunction.” We noted probable jurisdiction, 396 U. S. 1000. The appellees have persisted in their claim that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and after hearing oral argument we have concluded that they are right.

The order appealed from does no more than deny the appellants a declaratory judgment striking down the Communist Control Act. The only injunction ever requested by the appellants was one ordering the names of the Communist Party candidates to be placed on the ballot for the November 1968 election. That injunction was granted, and no appeal was taken by the state officials. As is plain from the opening words of its opinion in the present proceeding, the District Court recognized that no request for injunctive relief was before it: “We concern ourselves here with the propriety of entertaining that portion of plaintiffs’ complaint seeking declaratory relief . . . .” 300 F. Supp., at 1146.

That leaves us with the question whether an order granting or denying, only a declaratory judgment may be appealed to this Court under § 1253. In a recent case, Rockefeller v. Catholic Medical Center, 397 U. S. 820, we gave a negative answer to that question, and we adhere to that decision. Section 1253 by its terms grants this Court jurisdiction only of appeals from orders granting or denying injunctions. While there are similarities between injunctions and declaratory judgments, there are also important differences. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 154-155; cf. Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 254. The provisions concerning three-judge courts, including the provisions for direct appeal to this Court, antedate the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934, but Congress substantially amended the three-judge court provisions in 1937 and 1948 without providing for such direct appeals from orders granting or denying declaratory judgments.

We have stressed that the three-judge-court legislation is not “a measure of broad social policy to be construed with great liberality/’ but is rather “an enactment technical in the strict sense of the term and to be applied as such.” Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 251. Thus this Court’s jurisdiction under that legislation is to be literally construed. It would hardly be faithful to such a construction to read the statutory term “injunction” as meaning “declaratory judgment.”

We conclude, therefore, that this Court lacks jurisdiction of the appeal. A simple dismissal for want of jurisdiction, however, would leave the appellants with no recourse to appellate review, because they brought their appeal here rather than to the Court of Appeals and the time for appealing to the Court of Appeals has long since passed. Accordingly, as in other cases where an appeal was improperly brought to this Court rather than the Court of Appeals, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case so that the District Court may enter a fresh order dismissing the complaint, thus affording the appellants an opportunity to take a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.

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

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

I agree with the District Court that the case is too hypothetical to qualify as a “case” or “controversy” within the meaning of Article III and I would affirm. I do not, however, share the aversion to 28 U. S. C. § 1253 which the Court's opinion reflects. I would be hospitable to its aim and purpose as my dissent in Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. 111, 129, indicates. The declaratory judgment is, I think, “an order granting or denying . . . an . . . injunction” within the meaning of § 1253.

Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martines, 372 U. S. 144, is not to the contrary. It merely held that in some circumstances “an action solely for declaratory relief” could be tried before a single judge where the “relief sought and the order entered affected an Act of Congress in a totally noncoercive fashion.” Id., at 154, 155. We indicated, however, that a different result would follow “whenever the operation of a statutory scheme may be immediately disrupted before a final judicial determination of the validity of the trial court’s order can be obtained.” Id., at 155.

The Kennedy case, in other words, involved solely the question whether a three-judge court need always be summoned where no injunctive relief was asked or contemplated. The answer involved an analysis of 28 U. S. C. § 2281 and § 2282. We are now concerned with § 1253 and the meaning of “an order granting or denying . . . an . . . injunction.” The declaratory judgment may well contain a “thou shalt not” as commanding as any injunction. Or its refusal may be as definitive an adjudication as the refusal of an injunction. Ordinarily a declaratory judgment will result in precisely the same interference with and disruption of state proceedings that the long-standing policy limiting injunctions was designed to avoid.

Where, as here, the three-judge court was properly convened, I would think that any action it took, which was denying or granting an injunction or its equivalent, would be properly here under 28 U. S. C. § 1253.

       48 Stat. 955, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2201-2202.

       The early history of the three-judge-court statute, then §266 of the Judicial Code, is summarized in Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U. S. 471, 476-477. The 1937 and 1948 amendments, both of which made substantial changes in the statute, appear at 50 Stat. 752 and 62 Stat. 968, respectively.

       One commentator has argued for the broader construction on grounds of policy and logical symmetry, see Currie, The Three-Judge District Court in Constitutional Litigation, 32 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1, 13-20, but those arguments should be directed to Congress rather than the courts.

        Rockefeller v. Catholic Medical Center, supra; Stamler v. Willis, 393 U. S. 407; Moody v. Flowers, 387 U. S. 97; Phillips v. United States, supra.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam. Mr. Chief Justice Burger, Mr. Justice Harlan,

license: Public Domain

text:
    WALKER v. OHIO
    No. 1470.
    Decided June 15, 1970
   Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 (1967).

Mr. Chief Justice Burger,

dissenting.

The trial court, endeavoring to apply the standards articulated by this Court, held that the materials in question are obscene within the meaning of the relevant Ohio statute. This conclusion rested on findings that the materials are patently offensive to contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; that, when taken as a whole, their dominant theme appeals to the prurient interest of the reader; and that they are utterly without redeeming social value. The Ohio appellate courts declined to disturb that judgment. Yet today the Court reverses, citing only Redrup.

I dissent from such a summary disposition, not only for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Cain v. Kentucky, 397 U. S. 319 (1970), but also because I find no justification, constitutional or otherwise, for this Court’s assuming the role of a supreme and unreviewable board of censorship for the 60 States, subjectively judging each piece of material brought before it without regard to the findings or conclusions of other courts, state or federal. That is not one of the purposes for which this Court was established.

Mr. Justice Harlan,

for reasons expressed in his opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496 (1957); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 203 (1964); and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455 (1966), would leave the judgment of the state court undisturbed.

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


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    BASSETT v. SMITH, WARDEN
    No. 1658,
    Misc.
    Decided June 15, 1970
   Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia affirming the denial of habeas corpus is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration after petitioner has been afforded adequate access to a copy of the transcript of the trial court hearing on his petition for habeas corpus. Lane v. Brown, 372 U. S. 477 (1963); Long v. District Court, 385 U. S. 192 (1966); cf. Wade v. Wilson, 396 U. S. 282 (1970).

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


text:
    GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. LOCAL UNION 191, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS (AFL-CIO), et al.
    No. 701.
    Decided June 15, 1970
   Per Curiam.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Boys Markets v. Retail Clerks Union, ante, p. 235.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent.

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


text:
    May 18, 1970
    No. 1387.
    Wells v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y. Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 1145.
    Inzitari v. Connecticut.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Conn, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1338.
    Franklin v. Fukuoka, Judge.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Hawaii dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1343.
    Blincoe et ux. v. Forsythe.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Motion to dispense with printing jurisdictional statement granted. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1828,
    Misc.
    Nieder v. Fullerton, Trustee, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. J. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1302.
    Finch, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Perales.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 397 U. S. 1035.] Motion of respondent for the appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Richard Tinsman, Esquire, of San Antonio, Texas, a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 1389.
    Mayberry v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. [Certiorari granted, 397 U. S. 1020.] Order of this Court dated April 27, 1970, [see 397 U. S. 1060, Reporter's Note] appointing Ralph S. Spritzer, Esquire, as counsel for petitioner in this case is hereby revoked. It is ordered that Curtis R. Reitz, Esquire, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 912,
    No. 1782,
    No. 1869,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Brooke v. Foley, Chief Judge, U. S. District Court; Daniels v. Chambers, U. S. Circuit Judge, et al.; and Smith v. Supreme Court of Ohio et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 1905,
    Misc.
    O’Bryan v. Battisti, U. S. District Judge.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 1370.
    Coates et al. v. City of Cincinnati.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 1083.
    No. 1283.
    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. Cases consolidated and a total of one and one-half hours allotted for oral argument.

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

Reported below: No. 1083, 306 P. Supp. 338; No. 1283, 316 F. Supp. 337.


text:
    No. 1282.
    Rodeo Cowboys Assn., Inc., et al. v. Wegner.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1290.
    Murray et al., dba Nassau China Co. v. Harper, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1291.
    Sayne v. Shipley.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1297.
    Emerson Electric Co. et al. v. Fulton et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1299.
    In re Weinstein.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1341.
    Page, Warden v. Martin.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1342.
    Yakima Tribal Court et al. v. Settler et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1345.
    Sullivan v. Choquette et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1349.
    Simon v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1350.
    Matosky v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1355.
    Wademan v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1357.
    Lindsey v. New Mexico.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1360.
    Moody v. Flying Saucers, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1363.
    Niger v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1365.
    Lookretis v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1368.
    Konigsberg v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1372.
    Leo Feist, Inc., et al. v. Apollo Records N. Y. Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1374.
    Beatty v. Ellings et al.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1378.
    Bishop Processing Co. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1381.
    Hendrickson v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1382.
    Dean v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1384.
    Robinson et al. v. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1386.
    Miller v. New York Stock Exchange et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1388.
    Wheaton Glass Co. v. Shultz, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1393.
    D. H. Overmyer Warehouse Co., Inc. v. Kuniansky.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1402.
    Preperred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. Martin et al.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1403.
    Bruske v. Arnold.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 1413.
    Theodoropoulos et al. v. Thompson-Starrett Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1433.
    Zusman v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Cer-tiorari denied.


author: Mr. Justice Black,

text:
    No. 601.
    Warner et al. v. Kewanee Machinery & Conveyor Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,

dissenting.

This personal injury suit arose out of a farming accident. Petitioner Donald Warner, a 12-year-old boy, was working with other young men on a farm gathering hay. They were using a machine manufactured by the respondent corporation which carried bales of hay up from a wagon into the hayloft at the top of a barn. This machine consisted of a belt with step-like paddles on which the bales were placed. The power for the elevator was supplied by a tractor, and the operating controls were located on the tractor. Donald was at first working at the bottom of the elevator, but when it became necessary for him to change places with another boy at the top of the elevator the power was shut off and Donald proceeded to climb up the elevator, using the paddles as a ladder. As Donald neared the top, but before he had stepped off the machine, another boy, who could not see the top of the elevator, started it up again. Donald had unfortunately caught his foot in the mechanism and when the power was applied his leg was mangled. As a result he lost the lower part of his leg by amputation. Donald and his father brought suit, claiming that the respondent had breached its duty to warn of the potential dangers involved in using the machine as a substitute ladder and the duty to design a safe machine. At trial the Warners introduced testimonial evidence that other hay elevators were designed so that the operator could see the top, and that warnings of possible danger were given with other farm machinery. At the close of this evidence respondent moved for a directed verdict, the motion was denied, and evidence for the defense was submitted. At the conclusion of all the evidence the jury retired, deliberated fully, and returned with a verdict for $75,000 in favor of the Warners.

On appeal the Court of Appeals proceeded to consider the sufficiency of the evidence, even though it also held that since the respondent had not renewed its motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence the court could not consider sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. The court then concluded that petitioner had failed to produce sufficient evidence to warrant submitting the case to the jury and therefore set the jury’s verdict aside.

In my opinion this action was a flagrant disregard of the command of the Seventh Amendment that “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” This provision, as I understand it, means that questions of the sufficiency of the evidence are for the jury — not the trial judge or the appellate court — to decide, and that where a jury has found sufficient evidence to support a verdict, that determination should not be set aside on appeal unless there is no evidence to support the verdict. Here there was undoubtedly enough evidence for a jury to conclude that the respondent had either failed to design a sufficiently safe machine or failed to warn potential users of the dangers involved. On this record I cannot understand the Court of Appeals’ decision as anything but a substitution of its judgment as to the sufficiency of the evidence for that of the jury. Such action is, in my opinion, forbidden by the Seventh Amendment. Cf. Galloway v. United States, 319 U. S. 372, 396-407 (1943) (Black, J., dissenting). I would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment below summarily.

       The Court of Appeals held, apparently in conformity with the rule in all circuits, “that since the [respondent] did not renew its motion for a directed verdict at the close of the entire testimony, ‘the claimed insufficiency of the evidence is not before us.’ ” 411 F. 2d 1060, 1063 (1969). Nevertheless the court proceeded to consider “whether [petitioners’] evidence considered in the light most favorable to [them] established a prima facie case, or one properly submissible.” Ibid. Since this test is precisely the one the Court of Appeals should apply when considering whether a motion for a directed verdict was properly denied, see Continental Co. v. Union Carbide, 370 U. S. 690, 696 (1962), 5 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶50.02 [1] (1969), I share petitioners’ inability to understand by what sleight-of-hand the Court of Appeals could simultaneously announce that it could not consider the sufficiency of the evidence and then proceed to do precisely that. This apparent error is further evidence that the court went out of its way to upset the jury’s verdict.

       The petition for certiorari was filed within 90 days of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, as required by statute. 28 U. S. C. §2101 (c). The record, which under our Rules must also be filed within 90 days, Sup. Ct. Rule 21, was not filed until the 93d day after judgment. Since the requirement for filing the record is set forth by our Rules and not by statute, “there is no reason to exempt this case from the general principle that ‘[i]t is always within the discretion of a court ... to relax or modify its procedural rules adopted for the orderly transaction of business before it when in a given case the ends of justice require it.’ ” American Farm Lines v. Black Ball, 397 U. S. 532, 539 (1970). Cf. Taglianetti v. United States, 394 U. S. 316, n. 1 (1969). Respondent has been requested several times to file a response to the petition and has neglected to do so. In these circumstances there are more than sufficient reasons for waiving the record-filing requirement.


text:
    No. 1361.
    National Capital Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1304.
    Darlington County School District et al. v. Stanley et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1377.
    Hartmann et vir v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1331.
    California v. McGrew.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1415.
    Beto, Corrections Director v. Walton.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1351.
    Deering Milliken, Inc. v. Koratron Co., Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 136,
    Misc.
    Meadows v. North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 400,
    Misc.
    Hillery v. Nelson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 954,
    Misc.
    O’Connell v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1240,
    Misc.
    Williams v. Cox, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1531,
    Misc.
    Hillery v. California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1573,
    Misc.
    Tedder v. Page, Warden.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1705,
    Misc.
    Keeley v. McMann, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1772,
    Misc.
    MgKnight v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1778,
    Misc.
    Austin v. City and County of Denver.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1784,
    Misc.
    Stork v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1796,
    Misc.
    Green et al. v. Alaska.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1798,
    Misc.
    Muszalski v. Field, Men’s Colony Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1799,
    Misc.
    Rice v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1800,
    Misc.
    Favela v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1802,
    Misc.
    Jones v. Russell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1804,
    Misc.
    Cushway v. State Bar of Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1805,
    Misc.
    Faustin v. United States et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1824,
    Misc.
    Cline v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1816,
    Misc.
    Rutkowski v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1831,
    Misc.
    Miller v. Nelson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir, Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1832,
    Misc.
    Stanbridge v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1834,
    Misc.
    Urtado v. Beto, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1837,
    Misc.
    Tahl v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1840,
    Misc.
    Lancaster v. Hocker, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1842,
    Misc.
    Moore v. Cox, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1847,
    Misc.
    Stevenson v. Mancusi, Warden.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1853,
    Misc.
    Stallings v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1855,
    Misc.
    Brooks v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1864,
    Misc.
    Peabody v. Boldt, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1866,
    Misc.
    Lutz v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1867,
    Misc.
    Thompson v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1870,
    Misc.
    Stevens, Administratrix, et al. v. Midwest Emery Freight Systems, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1871,
    Misc.
    Gerzin v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1872,
    Misc.
    White v. Hegerhorst et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1877,
    Misc.
    Parks v. California et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1881,
    Misc.
    Carnegie v. MacDougall, Correction Commissioner, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1884,
    Misc.
    Duckett v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1885,
    Misc.
    Stinson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1887,
    Misc.
    Braico et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1888,
    Misc.
    DeCesare v. New Jersey et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1895,
    Misc.
    Nugent v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1897,
    Misc.
    Harmon v. Maryland.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1890,
    Misc.
    Hanks v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1894,
    Misc.
    Hendrickson v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1898,
    Misc.
    Schwartz v. Montana Board of Pardons.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1899,
    Misc.
    Robinson v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1900,
    Misc.
    Price v. Cox, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1901,
    Misc.
    Willard v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1902,
    Misc.
    Moore v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1908,
    Misc.
    Wasser v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1910,
    Misc.
    Cowan v. Mancusi, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1911,
    Misc.
    Romeo v. McMann, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1912,
    Misc.
    Bacon v. Nelson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1915,
    Misc.
    George v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1917,
    Misc.
    Ruderer v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1920,
    Misc.
    Crespo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1924,
    No. 1931,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Olinde v. United States; and Vasquez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 422 F. 2d 1314.


text:
    No. 1929,
    Misc.
    Sherman v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1934,
    Misc.
    Olson v. California Adult Authority.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1936,
    Misc.
    Kaupp v. Kennedy, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1962,
    Misc.
    Young v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1982,
    Misc.
    Dale v. United States et al.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 52,
    Misc.
    Steinhauer v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 24.
    No. 131.
    Waller v. Florida, Dandridge, Chairman, Maryland Board of Public Welfare, et al. v. Williams et al.,
   397 U. S. 387; and

397 U. S. 471. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 606.
    No. 1223.
    No. 528,
    No. 904,
    No. 1103,
    No. 1309,
    No. 1435,
    No. 1494,
    No. 1552,
    No. 1676,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misec.
    Illinois v. Allen, Meyer v. City of Chicago, Catanzaro v. Mancusi, Warden, Sharpe v. United States, Rando v. Beto, Corrections Director, Blackman v. Pennsylvania, Urbano v. News Syndicate Co., Inc., Viands v. Cox, Penitentiary Superintendent, Heard v. United States, Prewitt v. Arizona ex rel. Eyman, Warden, et al.,
   397 U. S. 337;

397 U. S. 1024;

397 U. S. 942;

397 U. S. 1026;

397 U. S. 1033;

397 U. S. 1026;

397 U. S. 1015;

397 U. S. 1028;

397 U. S. 1016; and

397 U. S. 1054. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 995.
    No. 435,
    Misc.
    Air Line Pilots Association, International v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., Pope v. City and County of Philadelphia et al.,
   397 U. S. 926; and

397 U. S. 993. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 1390,
    Misc.
    Hotel, Motel & Club Employees Union Local 6 v. Shultz, Secretary of Labor,
   397 U. S. 970. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1443,
    Misc.
    Saffioti v. Catherwood, Industrial Commissioner of New York,
   397 U. S. 956, 1031. Motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    May 22, 1970
    No. -.
    Byrne, District Attorney of Suffolk County v. P. B. I. C., Inc., et al.
    [For earlier order herein, see 397 U. S. 1082.]
   D. C. Mass. Application for stay denied by an equally divided court.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart would grant the stay.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    May 25, 1970

    No. 1267.
    Stotland et al. v. Pennsylvania.

      Except for No. 1267, No. 1392, and No. 1776, Misc., Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the orders of this date.

   Appeal from Super. Ct. Pa. dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

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

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

In August 1967, the City Council of Philadelphia passed an ordinance authorizing the mayor to declare a state of emergency in the city, “if he finds that the City or any part thereof is suffering or is in imminent danger of suffering civil disturbance, disorder, riot or other occurrence which will seriously and substantially endanger the health, safety and property of the citizens.” When a state of emergency is declared, the mayor is authorized to “[pjrohibit or limit the number of persons who may gather or congregate ... in any outdoor place, except persons who are awaiting transportation, engaging in recreational activities at a usual and customary place, or peaceably entering or leaving buildings.” The ordinance provides that the state of emergency shall exist “not in excess of two weeks,” but that it may be “extended for additional periods of two weeks.” There are no provisions for review of the mayor’s decision to declare a state of emergency.

On April 4, 1968, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated. On April 5, 1968, at 9 p.m., the mayor proclaimed a limited state of emergency, effective until 6 a.m. on April 10, 1968, “unless further extended,” and prohibited groups of 12 or more persons from gathering or congregating in any outdoor place, except in those situations authorized by the ordinance. The proclamation contained no specific factual findings to support the conclusion that a threat of “civil disturbance,” “disorder,” or “riot” existed. The courts below, however, found that the proclamation was supported by various scattered acts of disorder occurring in the city of Philadelphia between the assassination and the proclamation, such as window breaking, damage to automobiles, false alarms of fire, and jostling of pedestrians, some of which occurred incident to demonstrations. There had been disorders in other cities after the assassination.

Appellants were arrested for peaceful, nonviolent participation in outdoor gatherings of 12-or more persons in violation of the proclamation. Three separate gatherings were involved:

1. Several weeks prior to the issuance of the proclamation, the Philadelphia Committee for Non-Violent Action made plans to protest the recommissioning of a battleship, which was to take place on April 6, 1968. A group of approximately 100 gathered at a park near the site of the recommissioning on April 6, planted a tree, and then sat around the tree holding hands and singing. A permit for this demonstration had been issued by the park commission. There were some speakers, but none of them advocated violence. There was no threat of hostility between the demonstrators and any spectators. There was no evidence of any type of disorder or interference with the activities of others. About 50 of these demonstrators were arrested for violating the proclamation. Among those arrested was appellant Countryman. At the time of this demonstration, more than 10,000 persons were congregated a few blocks away for the recommissioning ceremony. None of those attending that ceremony were arrested.

2. Prior to issuance of the proclamation, members of an organization called People for Human Rights arranged to go to the homes of three United States Congressmen in the Philadelphia area to petition for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Members of the organization gathered at the home of one of the Congressmen on April 7, 1968, depositing petitions in his mail slot and distributing petitions to passersby. The size of the group eventually grew to 12 persons, at which time these individuals were arrested for violating the proclamation. Appellant Achtenberg was among those arrested. The demonstration was entirely peaceful; there were no incidents of disorder; the demonstrators violated no law other than the proclamation.

3. On April 8, 1968, a meeting was held by University of Pennsylvania students to discuss the mayor’s proclamation. A platform was set up on university property, and approximately 200 to 250 people congregated to hear the various speakers. As part of the meeting, a police officer read the proclamation to the group. After being ordered to disperse, most of the group departed, but about 55 remained and peacefully submitted to arrest. Appellant Stotland was among the group arrested. There was no disruptive or disorderly conduct at this meeting. The speeches were not inflammatory. There was no allegation that the meeting created traffic problems, engendered the hostility of onlookers, or involved any breach of the peace.

In short, none of the three meetings in which the appellants took part were other than peaceful, orderly, and noninflammatory; none of them interfered with traffic or disrupted other activities; and none of them involved any violation of any law, save for the mayor’s proclamation. This much was conceded by the courts below and is not disputed by the appellee.

At least since Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, decided in 1939, the use of public property such as streets and parks has been deemed an important adjunct to the rights of free speech and assembly protected by the First Amendment. States, of course, have the right to place reasonable regulations upon the time, place, and manner of the exercise of the rights of speech and assembly. As the Court said in Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 554, one could not, “contrary to traffic regulations, insist upon a street meeting in the middle of Times Square at the rush hour as a form of freedom of speech or assembly.” Such regulatory measures, however, must be narrowly drawn to reach only the legitimate objectives of state regulation. Overbreadth is constitutionally fatal, and we carefully scrutinize all such measures for that defect. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559, 562-564; Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 236-238. The ordinance involved in the Hague case, for example, gave the director of public safety of Jersey City, New Jersey, the authority to refuse to issue a permit for a public assembly in or upon the public streets, highways, parks, or buildings of the city, “for the purpose of preventing riots, disturbances or disorderly assemblage.” This Court held that ordinance constitutionally infirm, Mr. Justice Roberts stating:

“[The ordinance] can thus, as the record discloses, be made the instrument of arbitrary suppression of free expression of views on national affairs, for the prohibition of all speaking will undoubtedly 'prevent’ such eventualities. But uncontrolled official suppression of the privilege cannot be made a substitute for the duty to maintain order in connection with the exercise of the right.” 307 U. S., at 516.

The Philadelphia ordinance involved in this case, and the mayor’s proclamation issued under its authority, raise serious questions under the First Amendment. First, the prohibition of assembly extended not merely to publicly owned property, but to “any outdoor place,” public or private. Second, the proclamation covered all types of assembly, except for three narrow exceptions, regardless of how peaceful, orderly, and otherwise lawful that assembly might be. Third, there was no limitation on the length of the prohibition, for the state of emergency could be extended indefinitely. Appellants claim that as a regulatory measure, the ordinance and proclamation are unconstitutionally overbroad. I do not see how that question can be deemed to be “insubstantial.”

Control of civil disorders that may threaten the very existence of the State is certainly within the police power of government. Yet does a particular proclamation violate equal protection? Is it used to circumvent eon-stitutional procedures for clearing the streets of “undesirable” people? Is it used selectively against an unwelcome minority? Does it give fair notice and are its provisions sufficiently precise so as to survive constitutional challenge? Does it transgress one’s constitutional right to freedom of movement which of course is essential to the exercise of First Amendment rights?

I do not intimate that Philadelphia’s proclamation has a constitutional infirmity. But the questions are so novel and undecided that we should hear the case.

This Court can serve no higher function than to review serious and substantial questions regarding alleged infringements of the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly, whether they occur in fair weather or in foul.

I would note probable jurisdiction and put the case down for oral argument.

       In 1967 the city of Syracuse, New York, imposed a curfew reading as follows: “No person shall enter or remain in any public street, park, square or building in any such part or parts of the city during the hours of the day as may be prescribed by the Mayor.”
      The City Court granted motions to dismiss informations for violating the curfew, People v. Kearse, 56 Misc. 2d 586, 289 N. Y. S. 2d 346, saying:
      “A curfew law, like any other which restricts the activities or conduct of individuals, adults or minors, must not exceed the bounds of reasonableness. Three primary tests have often been invoked. (1) Is there an evil? (2) Do the means selected to curb the evil have a real and substantial relation to the result sought? (3) If the answer to the first two inquiries is yes, do the means availed of unduly infringe or oppose fundamental rights of those whose activities or conduct is curbed? . . . Section 57 of the ordinance demonstrates the evil to be dealt with. The means selected to curb the evil have a real and substantial relation to the result sought; but the means availed of, the total prohibition of all persons without exception from all of the streets of the city, unduly infringes upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the New York and United States Constitutions.” Id., at 594, 289 N. Y. S. 2d, at 355-356.
      For the same reason the County Court dismissed the appeal. People v. Kearse, 58 Misc. 2d 277, 295 N. Y. S. 2d 192.

       Comment, Judicial Control of the Riot Curfew, 77 Yale L. J. 1560 (1968); Comment, The Riot Curfew, 57 Calif. L. Rev. 450 (1969); Note, Legislation and Riots — Interaction, 35 Brooklyn L. Rev. 472, 478-481 (1969).


text:
    No. 1449.
    Cohen et ux. v. Wilmington Housing Authority.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Del. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1776,
    Misc.
    Tijerina et al. v. Henry et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. M. dismissed.

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

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

Appellants brought this suit as a class action, claiming to represent a class “designated as Indo-Hispano, also called Mexican, Mexican-American and Spanish American, [which is] generally characterized by Spanish surnames, mixed Indian and Spanish ancestry and . . . Spanish as a primary or maternal language.” The District Court dismissed the complaint as a class action, holding that appellants’ definition of the class was “too vague to be meaningful.”

Class actions are controlled by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That Rule does not in terms define a “class,” other than by stating that the class must be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable” and that there must be “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Certainly those two prerequisites were satisfied in this case. In addition, however, federal courts have required that “[t]he members of a class must be capable of definite identification as being either in or out of it.” Chaffee v. Johnson, 229 F. Supp. 445, 448. See also Dolgow v. Anderson, 43 F. R. D. 472, 491; Weisman v. MCA Inc., 45 F. R. D. 258, 261; 3B J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 23.04 (1969).

In my view, the District Court clearly erred in holding that the members of the class were not sufficiently identifiable. The court relied, for example, on the fact that “the complaint is silent as to whether people with some Spanish or Mexican and Indian ancestors, as well as ancestors who are of some other extraction, i. e., French, English, Danish, etc., would be included as members of the class. These considerations make this characteristic so vague as to be meaningless.” One thing is not vague or uncertain, however, and that is that those who discriminate against members of this and other minority-groups have little difficulty in isolating the objects of their discrimination. And it is precisely this discrimination, as alleged by appellants in their complaint, that presents the “questions of law or fact common to the class.”

This Court responded to a similar contention regarding lack of an identifiable class in a different context in Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475. There, the petitioner claimed that persons of Mexican descent were systematically excluded from jury service in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that “persons of Mexican descent” constituted a distinct class to which the equal protection guarantee was applicable. “Throughout our history differences in race and color have defined easily identifiable groups which have at times required the aid of the courts in securing equal treatment under the laws.” Id., at 478. And the Court held that one method by which the petitioner could satisfy his burden of proving that persons of Mexican descent constituted a separate class was by showing the attitude of the community. Id., at 479.

What the Court said in Hernandez is, I think, pertinent to the question of establishing the existence of a proper class for a class action under Rule 23. There can be no dispute that in many parts of the Southwestern United States persons of Indian and Mexican or Spanish descent are, as a class, subject to various forms of discrimination. Appellants, as members of that class, brought this action to prevent the continuance of alleged discriminatory actions taken against the class. I do not see how it can be seriously contended that this suit is not a proper class action. Indeed, the notes of the Advisory Committee to the 1966 amendment of Rule 23 state that “[illustrative [of class actions properly brought under Rule 23 (b) (2) ] are various actions in the civil-rights field where a party is charged with discriminating unlawfully against a class, usually one whose members are incapable of specific enumeration.”

The District Court also ruled on the merits of appellants’ claims, dismissing their first, third, and fourth causes of action “with prejudice,” on the ground that they were based on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and that nothing in that Treaty conferred the rights claimed by appellants. The third and fourth causes of action, however, specifically relied on the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, so that as to them a dismissal with prejudice seems clearly wrong. The court also noted that there was a lack of specific facts pleaded in appellants’ complaint to support the allegations of discrimination in the third and fourth causes of action. With regard to appellants’ second cause of action, however, the court held that, because a cause of action would be stated if suit were brought on behalf of a properly defined class alleging specific facts, the dismissal should be without prejudice. That reasoning should also apply to appellants’ third and fourth causes of action.

In short, I do not think that the District Court’s disposition of appellants’ complaint should in any way prejudice appellants from obtaining a ruling, as representatives of the Indo-Hispano class, as to the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of the discrimination presently claimed in the first, third, and fourth causes of action of the complaint in this action.

I would note probable jurisdiction and put this case down for oral argument.

       Appellants also sought to represent a class designated as “poor,” defined as those who qualify for free legal process under certain New Mexico statutes. The District Court ruled that this was not an adequate definition of a class. Appellants do not press a contention of error with regard to this ruling, and I therefore do not deal with that question.

       The District Court also held that appellants had failed to prove that they would fairly and adequately represent the class. The court did not elaborate on the basis for this holding, nor did it specify what nature of proof it would require to establish adequate representation. Appellants alleged discrimination against a distinct cultural minority group, and were themselves members of that minority group. Adequate representation requires that the interests of the representatives of the class be compatible with and not antagonistic to the interests of those whom they purport to represent. See, e. g., Clark v. Thompson, 206 F. Supp. 539, 542, and cases cited. It is difficult to see how the District Court could have concluded that there was any antagonism of interest in preventing discrimination against the class. “Racial discrimination is by definition a class discrimination. If it exists, it applies throughout the class.” Hall v. Werthan Bag Corp., 251 F. Supp. 184, 186. The District Court’s holding may have been based on its doubt that, as regards the appellants’ first cause of action, all members of the class would agree that failure to provide Spanish language instruction was a discriminatory action. The burden of affirmatively proving agreement with the substantive claim on the part of all or a majority of the members of the class, however, would appear to be a wholly unreasonable and unnecessary requirement. “Necessarily, a different situation is presented where absent class members inform the court of their displeasure with plaintiff’s representation, . . . but the representative party cannot be said to have am affirmative duty to demonstrate that the whole or a majority of the class considers his representation adequate. Nor can silence be taken as a. sign of disapproval.” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 391 F. 2d 555, 563. “A class action should not be denied merely because every member of the class might not be enthusiastic about enforcing his rights.” Weinstein, Revision of Procedure: Some Problems in Class Actions, 9 Buffalo L. Rev. 433, 460 (1960).

       Maintenance of class actions on behalf of persons of Mexican or Latin descent was allowed in Mendez v. Westminister School Dist., 64 F. Supp. 544, and Gonzales v. Sheely, 96 F. Supp. 1004.

       The fifth cause of action in appellants’ complaint, alleging basically the same discrimination as the third and fourth causes of action, was brought only on behalf of the “poor class.” I therefore find it unnecessary to discuss the dismissal of this cause of action. See n. 1, supra.

       1 assume that, because appellants’ first cause of action rested solely on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the dismissal of that cause of action “with prejudice” would not prevent the bringing of a subsequent action, alleging the same acts of discrimination, based on the Fourteenth Amendment or other constitutional provision.


text:
    No. 1472.
    Nationwide Theatres Investment Co. et al. v. Thompson et al.
   C. A.- 2d Cir. Application for stay presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 1058.
    Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 397 U. S. 960.] Motion of American Civil Liberties Union for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 1405.
    Griggs et al. v. Duke Power Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.

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


text:
    No. 1979,
    No. 2067,
    No. 2109,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Payne v. Hocker, Warden; McCartney v. Superior Court, San Bernardino County, et al.; and Gardner v. California et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 1392.
    International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO v. Hardeman.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari granted limited to Questions 1 and 3 presented by the petition which read as follows:

“1. Whether a federal court in a Section 102 proceeding reviewing an expulsion of a member by a union may apply a standard of review whereby the court substitutes its own factual findings and interpretations of the union’s constitution and by-laws for those of the union.”
“3, Whether the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, preempts an action brought under Section 102 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act wherein a former union member, claiming wrongful expulsion, does not seek restoration of membership rights but claims damages for an alleged loss of employment due to the union’s alleged failure to refer him to employers.”


text:
    No. 1127.
    Weiss et al. v. Wyoming ex rel. Cardine.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1128.
    Belondon v. City of Casper.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1253.
    Ferrara v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1340.
    Gordon v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1395.
    Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1346.
    Lanrao, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1375.
    Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Federal Power Commission et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1396.
    Glazerman v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1397.
    677.50 Acres of Land in Marion County, Kansas, et al. v. United States.
   C.. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1398.
    Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Milsan, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1399.
    Brough v. Board of Education of Millard County School District et al.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1401.
    Pingatore et vir v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1404.
    Tennessee Corp. v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co.
   C, A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1410.
    Moultrie Manufacturing Co. et al. v. Tennessee Fabricating Co., dba TFC Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1412.
    No. 1423.
    Indiana General Corp. v. Krystinel Corp.; and Krystinel Corp. v. Indiana General Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 421 F. 2d 1023.


text:
    No. 1420.
    Young v. Scott et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1424.
    Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. American Aloe Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1447.
    Terrell Machine Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1473.
    Monogram Models, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1474.
    Adamowski et al. v. Jayne.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1400.
    Cofone et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1406.
    Dacey et al. v. New York County Lawyers' Assn.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1500.
    Craven, Warden v. Tucker.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 31,
    Misc.
    McCloud v. Rundle, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 231,
    Misc.
    Canady v. Follette, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 556,
    Misc.
    Reed v. Field, Men’s Colony Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77,
    Misc.
    Rosen v. Follette, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1306,
    Misc.
    Taylor v. Cox, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1586,
    Misc.
    Limbaugh v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1589,
    Misc.
    Rolon v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1654,
    Misc.
    Nicholson v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1685,
    Misc.
    Evans v. City of Detroit et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1695,
    Misc.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1724,
    Misc.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1728,
    Misc.
    Downs v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1818,
    Misc.
    McHenry v. Michigan State Parole Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1820,
    Misc.
    Thompson v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1839,
    Misc.
    Bolden v. Moseley, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1841,
    Misc.
    McClendon v. Parker.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1821,
    Misc.
    Viands v. Brown, Director, Virginia Department of Welfare and Institutions.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1822,
    Misc.
    Peterson v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1827,
    Misc.
    Williams v. Follette, Warden.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1844,
    Misc.
    Tinsley v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1849,
    Misc.
    Davis v. Craven, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1859,
    Misc.
    Cannon v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1875,
    Misc.
    Fullen v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N., Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1876,
    Misc.
    Rosenberg v. Mancusi, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1878,
    Misc.
    Koebrich v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1914,
    Misc.
    O’Connor v. Clement, Sheriff.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1927,
    Misc.
    Lasalandra v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1935,
    Misc.
    Goff v. Pfau, Trustee in Bankruptcy.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1943,
    Misc.
    Buie v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1950,
    Misc.
    Cantrell v. California Adult Authority.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1973,
    Misc.
    Cook v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1975,
    Misc.
    Lloyd v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1990,
    Misc.
    Grimes v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2033,
    Misc.
    Penney et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Rehearing Denied


text:
    No. 1436,
    No. 1615,
    No. 1738,
    No. 1823,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Juliano v. Cardwell, Warden, Kerner et ux. v. CIBA Corp., Gordon v. Bright et al., Middleton v. United States,
   397 U. S. 1046;

397 U. S. 1050;

397 U. S. 1057; and

397 U. S. 1071. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    May 26, 1970
    No. 1054,
    Misc.
    Mink v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    May 28, 1970
    No. 2263,
    Misc.
    Addonizio v. Barlow, U. S. District Judge.
   D. C. N. J. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

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


text:
    June 1, 1970

    No. 1409,
    Misc.
    Harris v. City of Houston et al.

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

   Appeal from Dist. Ct. of Harris County, Tex., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1267,
    Misc.
    Thomas et al. v. Burson, Director, Department of Family and Children Services.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Ga. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 36,
    Orig.
    Texas v. Louisiana.
    [For earlier order herein, see 397 U. S. 931.]
   Motion for the appointment of a Special Master granted. It is ordered that the Honorable Robert Yan Pelt, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, be, and he is hereby, appointed Special Master in this case with authority to fix the time and conditions for filing of additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings, and with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The Master is directed to submit such reports as he may deem appropriate.

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

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


text:
    No. -.
    California ex rel. Smith v. United States et al.
   Motion for leave to file an original action denied.


text:
    No. 179.
    Rogers, Secretary of State v. Bellei.
   Appeal from D. C. D. C. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 396 U. S. 811; restored to calendar, 397 U. S. 1060.] Motion of appellee to remove case from summary calendar granted and a total of one and one-half hours allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 977.
    Wyman, Commissioner of Social Services of New York v. James et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 397 U. S. 904.] Application to remove seal from record or permit reference in briefs to sealed material granted.


text:
    No. 1058.
    Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 397 U. S. 960.] Motion of Air Line Stewards & Stewardesses Association, Local 550, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 2031,
    Misc.
    Time, Inc. v. Firestone.
   C. A. 5th Cir. and D. C. S. D. Fla. Motion for leave to file petition for writs of certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that cer-tiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 2007,
    No. 2174,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Meyer v. Field, Men’s Colony Superintendent; and Wood v. Koloski, Warden.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 1896,
    No. 1956,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Millan-Diaz v. Augelli, U. S. District Judge; and Montague v. Hunter, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Washington.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 486,
    Misc.
    McGautha v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition which reads as follows:

“1., Does California’s practice of allowing capital trial juries absolute discretion, uncontrolled by standards or directions of any kind, to impose the death penalty upon a defendant convicted of the crime of murder violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?”

Case transferred to appellate docket.


text:
    No. 709,
    Misc.
    Crampton v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 2 and 3 presented by the petition which read as follows:

“2. Whether the Ohio statute which provides that the trier of fact shall determine both guilt and punishment in a single verdict in cases of murder in the first degree violates Petitioner’s right to be free from self-incrimination.
“3. Whether the Ohio statute which provides that the trier of fact may grant or withhold a recommendation of mercy in cases of murder in the first degree, and which provides no standards or criteria to assist the trier of fact in making such determination, violates Petitioner’s right to due process and equal protection of the law.”

Case transferred to appellate docket..


text:
    No. 780,
    Misc.
    Bruno v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted and case transferred to appellate docket.


text:
    No. 1022,
    Misc.
    Harris v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted and case transferred to appellate docket.


text:
    No. 1274.
    Kahl v. Breen et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1301.
    Williams v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1330.
    Sibley et al. v. Rural Electrification Administration et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1348.
    Pacific National Insurance Co. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1409.
    Bell v. Government of the Virgin Islands.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1411.
    Turner v. Thompson et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1416.
    In re Bedford Aviation, Inc.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1417.
    Terry v. Martin.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1418.
    Vasquez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1419.
    O'Brien, Correctional Superintendent v. Saville.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1421.
    Iowa v. Cullison, Judge.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1422.
    Weltronic Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C.. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1425.
    Broadriver, Inc. v. City of Stamford et al.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1428.
    Puchalski v. New Jersey State Parole Board.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1431.
    Corwin v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1436.
    Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1437.
    Mucie v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1438.
    Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Trexler, Administratrix, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1443.
    Costa v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1439.
    Central Gulf Steamship Corp. v. Grace Line, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir., Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1442.
    Dean Foods Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1445.
    Insurance Company of North America v. First National Bank of Decatur, formerly National Bank of Decatur.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1450.
    A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi v. Dow Chemical Co. et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1457.
    Northern Acceptance Trust 1065 et al. v. Gray, U. S. District Judge, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1476.
    Wright v. California.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Los Angeles. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1495.
    Cimini v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1380.
    Horelick et al. v. New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1391.
    Lash, Warden v. Evans.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 229,
    Misc.
    Gray v. Field, Men’s Colony Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1430.
    George v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Cer-tiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1469.
    Time, Inc. v. Wasserman.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1490.
    Time, Inc. v. Firestone.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 383,
    Misc.
    Tyler v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 582,
    Misc.
    Winton v. Field, Men’s Colony Superintendent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 827,
    Misc.
    Wyant v. Brewer, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 881,
    No. 937,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Killean v. Nelson, Warden; and Leahy v. Craven, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1133,
    Misc.
    Hundley v. Pinto, Prison Farm Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1258,
    Misc.
    Durham v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1579,
    Misc.
    Abbott v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1344,
    Misc.
    Zitzer v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1460,
    Misc.
    Bynes v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1801,
    Misc.
    Jones v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1846,
    Misc.
    DeBlasio v. Deegan, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1919,
    Misc.
    Weldon v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1921,
    Misc.
    Potts v. United States.
   C. A., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1923,
    Misc.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1926,
    Misc.
    Cordova v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1932,
    Misc.
    Dedmon v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1937,
    Misc.
    Hayes v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1940,
    Misc.
    Adams v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1951,
    Misc.
    Leventhal v. Gavin, Correction Commissioner.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1942,
    Misc.
    Beckman v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1952,
    Misc.
    Williams v. Russell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1954,
    Misc.
    Biancofiori v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1959,
    Misc.
    Harris v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1961,
    Misc.
    Maggio v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1963,
    Misc.
    Huffman v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1970,
    Misc.
    Graham v. Fitzharris, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1972,
    Misc.
    Robinson v. Blackwell, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1977,
    Misc.
    Demeter v. Yeager, Principal Keeper.
   C„ A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1983,
    Misc.
    Bellinger v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1988,
    Misc.
    Lopez v. New Mexico.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1994,
    Misc.
    Carson v. Elrod, Superintendent, Department of Public Welfare.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1976,
    Misc.
    Hall v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1997,
    Misc.
    Bertone v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1999,
    Misc.
    Benson v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2008,
    Misc.
    Brevik v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2011,
    Misc.
    Holt v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2014,
    Misc.
    Benson v. Eyman, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2022,
    Misc.
    Vitoratos v. Morris, Judge.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2024,
    Misc.
    Flagler v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2025,
    Misc.
    Stemley v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2058,
    Misc.
    Bowman v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 431,
    Misc.
    Williams v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 2028,
    Misc.
    Hurd v. Hurd et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1635,
    Misc.
    Hudson v. New York.
    Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1957,
    Misc.
    Evans v. Lash, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 502,
    No. 771,
    Misc.,
    Misc.,
    October Term, 1967.
    October Term, 1967.
    Epton v. New York, Epton v. New York,
   390 U. S. 29, 976; and

ibid. Motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 445.
    No. 1146.
    No. 1256.
    No. 1276.
    No. 1279.
    No. 1303.
    No. 1320.
    No. 1335.
    No. 1336.
    Standard Industries, Inc. v. Tigrett Industries, Inc., et al., American Art Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Cincinnati Window Cleaning Co. et al. v. Walker, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Birnbaum v. United States, McGrath v. Kirwan, Gripkey v. Gerty et al., Gripkey v. Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Lowe et al., Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Lowe et al.,
   397 U. S. 586;

397 U. S. 990;

397 U. S. 1038;

397 U. S. 1044;

397 U. S. 1041;

397 U, S. 1063;

397 U. S. 1042;

397 U. S. 591; and

397 U. S. 1042. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 1112,
    No. 1200,
    No. 1244,
    No. 1248,
    No. 1639,
    No. 1666,
    No. 1706,
    No. 1710,
    No. 1726,
    No. 1747,
    No. 1762,
    No. 1815,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Lampton et al. v. Bonin et al., Marino v. Pennsylvania, Smith v. Florida, Frazier v. United States, Cummings v. Cox, Penitentiary Superintendent, Mixon v. Penn Stevedores, Inc., Moore v. United States et al., Hopkins v. California, Cox v. United States, Martinez v. California, Keane v. Cucurello, Beltowski v. Young, Warden,
   397 U. S. 663;

397 U. S. 1077;

397 U. S. 1077;

397 U. S. 1013;

397 U. S, 1051;

397 U. S. 1052;

397 U. S. 1055;

397 U. S. 1055;

397 U. S. 1056;

397 U. S. 1069;

397 U. S, 1070; and

397 U. S. 1079. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 41.
    No. 59.
    Choctaw Nation et al. v. Oklahoma et al.; and Cherokee Nation or Tribe of Indians in Oklahoma v. Oklahoma et al.,
   397 U. S. 620. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1620,
    Misc.
    Lewis v. United States,
   397 U. S. 1034. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1239.
    Giagnocavo v. Bucks County Commissioners,
   397 U. S. 590. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 4, 1970
    No. 1577.
    McCarthy v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    June 8, 1970

    No. 1463.
    National Advertising Co. v. County of Monterey et al.

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

   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion to dismiss granted. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 35,
    Orig.
    United States v. Maine et al.
    [For earlier order herein, see 395 U. S. 955..]
   Motions for the appointment of a Special Master granted. It is ordered that Honorable Albert B. Maris, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, be, and he is hereby, appointed Special Master in this case with authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings, and with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The Master is directed to submit such reports as he may deem appropriate.

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

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

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


text:
    No. 900.
    United States v. Fancher.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 397 U. S. 985.,] Motion of appellee for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Motion of appellee for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Donald R. Shultz, Esquire, of Rapid City, South Dakota, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for appellee in this case.


text:
    No. 1192.
    Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation.
    [See 397 U. S. 932.]
   Application for bail denied.

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

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


text:
    No. 1289.
    Palmer et al. v. Thompson, Mayor of the City of Jackson, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 397 U. S. 1035.] Motion of petitioners to remove case from summary calendar denied. However, 15 additional minutes allotted to each side.


text:
    No. 1922,
    Misc.
    In re Disbarment of Allison.
   It having been reported to the Court that Earl W. Allison of Columbus, Ohio, has been indefinitely suspended from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, and this Court by order of March 30, 1970 [397 U. S. 1005], having suspended the said Earl W. Allison from the practice of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred;

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

It Is Ordered that the said Earl W. Allison be, and he is hereby, disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.


text:
    No. 1463,
    Misc.
    May v. Dona Ana County, New Mexico.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied without prejudice to the right of petitioner to apply to appropriate state court for the relief sought. Smith v. Hooey, Judge, 393 U. S. 374, and Dickey v. Florida, ante, p. 30.


text:
    No. 2038,
    Misc.
    White v. Young, U. S. District Judge.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 1113.
    Connell v. Higginbotham et al.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Fla. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 1557.
    James et al. v. Valtierra et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. Probable jurisdiction noted.

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


text:
    No. 1364.
    Tropiano v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1408.
    Jones et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1429.
    Johnson et al. v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1432.
    Okino, Judge, et al. v. Hawaii National Bank, Honolulu.
   Sup. Ct. Hawaii. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1448.
    Farrell, Trustee v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., Trustee.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1451.
    Wascher v. Lundeen et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1452.
    First National Bank in Dallas, Executor, et al. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1453.
    Mobil Oil Corp. v. Hughes et vir.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1454.
    Johnson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1458.
    Abramson v. Levinson.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1459.
    Ruehlmann, Executor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1460.
    Henault Mining Co. v. Zaidlicz, Director of Bureau of Land Management of Montana, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1462.
    Dryden et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1477.
    Glen Alden Corp. et al. v. Kahan.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1480.
    Keefe v. City of Chicago.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1482.
    Stratmore et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1492.
    S. T. G. Construction Co., Inc. v. Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Co.
   C. A., 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1498.
    Tunica County School District et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1501.
    Maloney, dba Apalachicola Times v. Gibson et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1502.
    McGee v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1506.
    Whitcomb et ux. v. Sanitary Commission of Anne Arundel County et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1519.
    Eyen v. Nebraska ex rel. Meyer, Attorney General of Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1464.
    Garland Knitting Mills of Beaufort, South Carolina, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A., D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1508.
    Powell v. Committee on Admissions and Grievances et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1528.
    B & L Sales Associates v. H. Daroff & Sons, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1541.
    Ajamian v. Township of North Bergen et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1195,
    Misc.
    Lewis v. Kropp, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1577,
    Misc.
    Nelson v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1612,
    Misc.
    Van Voltenburg v. Brewer, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1678,
    Misc.
    Abbatiello v. Follette, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1848,
    Misc.
    Eckels v. United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1903,
    Misc.
    Baughman v. Baker, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1904,
    Misc.
    Jackson v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1906,
    Misc.
    Hocking v. California Adult Authority et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1907,
    Misc.
    Johnson v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1916,
    Misc.
    Williams v. Cox, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1938,
    Misc.
    Long v. Pate, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1941,
    Misc.
    Domer v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1945,
    Misc.
    Lucas v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1946,
    Misc.
    Kalec v. Lash, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1948,
    Misc.
    Pete v. Nelson, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1949,
    Misc.
    Pelletier v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir.. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1989,
    Misc.
    Haynes v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1992,
    Misc.
    Wheeler v. Mummert, Sheriff.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1993,
    Misc.
    Hill v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.,


text:
    No. 2000,
    Misc.
    Smulek v. Rundle, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2001,
    Misc.
    Berriel v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2002,
    Misc.
    Zimmerman v. Wells et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2004,
    Misc.
    Gilles v. Minnesota et al.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2005,
    Misc.
    Schutz v. Texas.
   Ct. Crina. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2037,
    Misc.
    Carrigan v. Erich P. Karlsson Builders, Inc.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2006,
    Misc.
    Nance v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2018,
    Misc.
    Nilsson v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2019,
    Misc.
    Kelley v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2032,
    Misc.
    Connors v. South Dakota et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2044,
    Misc.
    Levy v. LaVallee, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 2061,
    Misc.
    Bolin v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1254.
    No. 1531,
    No. 1696,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    E. B. & A. C. Whiting Co. v. Shaw et al., Hillery v. California, Lento v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.,
   397 U. S. 1076;

ante, p. 909; and

397 U. S. 1054. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 875.
    Dapper v. California,
   397 U. S. 905. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 10, 1970
    No. 900.
    United States v. Fancher.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 397 U. S. 985.] Appeal dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    June 11, 1970
    No. 1598.
    Gibson et al. v. Kugler et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. J. Motions to dispense with printing jurisdictional statement and to dispense with printing motion to dismiss or affirm granted. Motion to advance granted. Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    June 15, 1970

    No. 1359.
    No. 1444.
    Powell, Secretary of State of Illinois, et al. v. Mann et al.; and Mann et al. v. Powell, Secretary of State of Illinois, et al.

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

   Appeals from D. C. N.. D. Ill. Judgment affirmed. Reported below: 314 F. Supp. 677.


text:
    No. 1456.
    Beeline Express, Inc. v. United States et al.
   Appeal from D. C., Colo. Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 1489.
    Watermeier et al. v. Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. La. Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 1503.
    Bergerman et al. v. Lindsay, Mayor of the City of New York, et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1358.
    Cannon et al. v. Green et al.
   Appeal from D. C. D. C. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 90.
    Birnbaum v. Illinois.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. 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.


text:
    No. 1471.
    E. S. G. v. Texas.
   Appeal from Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 4th Sup. Jud. Dist, 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.


text:
    No. 40,
    Orig.
    Pennsylvania v. New York et al.
   Motion for leave to file bill of complaint granted and defendants allowed 60 days to answer.


text:
    No. 730.
    Hill v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Case restored to calendar for reargument and to be argued with cases No. 1125 [certiorari granted, 397 U. S. 986] and No. 1142 [Elkanich v. United States, certiorari granted, 396 U. S. 1057],


text:
    No. 1420.
    Young v. Scott et al.,
   ante, p. 929. Motion of respondent Scott for allowance of attorney’s fee denied without prejudice to submission of a motion for such relief to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.. S. 400.


text:
    No. 67.
    Hoskins v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Application for bail presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 2148,
    Misc.
    Seymour v. Pate, Warden.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 250.
    Groppi v. Wisconsin.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Wis. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 1493.
    No. 1494.
    United States et al. v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.; and Illinois Commerce Commission et al. v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
   Appeals from D. C. N. D. Ill, Probable jurisdiction noted. Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 308 F. Supp. 645.


text:
    No. 284.
    U. S. Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Arguelles.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83.
    Schwartz et al. v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa, Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 383.
    Mouton, Collector of Revenue of Louisiana v. Sinclair Oil & Gas Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 124.
    No. 172.
    No. 201.
    No. 210.
    Fuhrman, Administratrix, et al. v. United States Steel Corp.; Lamp, Administratrix, et al. v. United States Steel Corp.; Cook, Administratrix v. United States Steel Corp.; and Radtke, Administratrix, et al. v. United States Steel Corp.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 407 F. 2d 1143.


text:
    No. 389.
    United States v. Urban Plumbing & Heating Co.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 401.
    United States v. Woodcrest Construction Co., Inc., et al.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 498.
    United States v. Wallenius Bremen, G. m. b. H.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1467.
    Wall Street Transcript Corp. v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1468.
    Vavolizza v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1472.
    Nationwide Theatres Investment Co. et al. v. Thompson et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1485.
    DeMaio v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1487.
    Armstrong, Jones & Co. et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1488.
    Marcello v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1496.
    District 30, United Mine Workers of America, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1497.
    Schmidt et al. v. Archer Iron Works, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1504.
    Cowden Manufacturing Co. v. Koratron Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1505.
    Ocean Freighting & Brokerage Corp. v. States Marine Lines, Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1509.
    Eskow v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1514.
    Sabino v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1515.
    City of Warren et al. v. Metro Homes, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1520.
    Horton v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1524.
    Williams v. Williams.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1525.
    Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1529.
    Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen et al. v. Hansen et al.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1535.
    Erickson et al., dba “Phoenix Tapes” v. Capitol Records, Inc.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1539.
    Zmuda v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1576.
    United Mine Workers of America v. Dean Coal Co. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 173.
    American Boiler Manufacturers Assn. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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