text:
    November 13, 1978
    No. 78-431.
    Godsy v. Godsy.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Mo., Kansas City District, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 78-5458.
    Wayland v. Town of Topsfield.
   Appeal from C. A. 1st Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5507.
    Harto v. Colorado.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Colo, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of cer-tiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-467.
    Enntex Oil & Gas Co. (of Nevada) et al. v. Texas.
   Appeal from Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 6th Sup. Jud. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 78-5329.
    Henry v. Colorado.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Colo, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Stevens would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. A-364.
    Schafer et al. v. Trustees of Property of Penn Central Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice, and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 76-419. No. 76-528.
    Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.; and Consumers Power Co. v. Aeschliman et al.,
   435 U. S. 519. Motions of respondents for elimination or reduction of taxed costs denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.


text:
    No. 77-983.
    No. 78-119.
    No. 78-139.
    Washington et al. v. Washinton State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn. et al.; and Washington et al. v. Puget Sound Gillnetters Assn. et al. Washington et al. v. United States et al.; and Puget Sound Gillnetters Assn. et al. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (United States et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   Sup. Ct. Wash. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 909]; and

C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 909.] Motion of the Solicitor General and motion of respondent Indian Tribes (except Yakima Indian Nation) to consolidate cases for purpose of briefing and argument granted. Briefing schedule of the Solicitor General as set out in his motion is adopted by the Court. Total time of two hours heretofore granted by the Court in these cases is reduced to one and one-half hours and is divided as follows: 30 minutes to the Solicitor General; 30 minutes to the State of Washington; 15 minutes to the Indian Tribes; and 15 minutes to the association of non-Indian fishermen.


text:
    No. A-395 (78-729).
    Arrow Food Distributors, Inc. v. Love, Conservator.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Application for stay, addressed to Mr. Justice Rehnquist, and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-420 (78-761).
    American Telephone & Telegraph Co. et al. v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. That portion of the order by The Chief Justice on November 2, 1978, which stayed the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, entered October 31, 1978, pending filing of a response, is vacated and the application is denied.


text:
    No. A-372 ( 78-5600).
    Gibbs v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for recall and stay of mandate, addressed to Mr. Justice Marshall, and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 78-482.
    Smith, Judge, et al. v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 78-160.
    No. 78-161.
    Wilson et al. v. Omaha Indian Tribe et al.; and Iowa et al. v. Omaha Indian Tribe et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari in No. 78-160 is granted limited to Questions 2 and 3 presented by the petition. Petition for writ of certiorari in No. 78-161 is granted limited to Questions 1 and 4 presented by the petition. Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 575 F. 2d 620.


text:
    No. 77-1779.
    Paris v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6570.
    Wilson v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6754.
    Hobgood v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6814.
    Hoppman v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6916.
    No. 78-316.
    Uriarte v. United States; and Ramirez-Uriarte v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. .Reported below: 575 F. 2d 215.


text:
    No. 77-6920.
    Clarke v. Percy, Secretary, Department of Health and Social Service of Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No.77-6968.
    Hardwick v. Weldon et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-13.
    Schoenhut v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-32.
    Reeves v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-61.
    Hitcheva v. Division of State Lands of Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-144.
    No. 78-5156.
    Mendel v. United States; and Reeves v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied Reported below: 578 F. 2d 668.


text:
    No. 78-147.
    Champagne v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-186.
    No. 78-314.
    Rich v. United States; and Pelton v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 578 F. 2d 701.


text:
    No. 78-220.
    Braverman v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-288.
    Wencke et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-290.
    Herrera-Vinegas et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-292.
    Ute Indian Tribe v. State Tax Commission of Utah.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-315.
    Neaveill v. Andolsek, Commissioner, United States Civil Service Commission, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-362.
    Western Waterproofing Co., Inc. v. Marshall, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-367.
    Quigley v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-378.
    St. Elizabeth’s Hospital of Boston v. Weiner, Chairman, Rate Setting Commission, Office of Human Services of Massachusetts, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-409.
    Vallance v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-424.
    Cunningham v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-438.
    McMasters et al. v. Chase.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-444.
    Ronk et al. v. Ahlert et ux.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-457.
    Nietert et al. v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-459.
    Rosee v. Board of Trade of Chicago et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-470.
    Portner v. Community State Bank & Trust Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-471.
    Nelson v. Pentecostal Church of God, Inc., M. I., et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-472.
    Lemm v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-474.
    Princeton Community Phone Book, Inc., et al. v. Bate et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-476.
    Florida Power & Light Co. v. Gainesville Utilities Department et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-480.
    Blanco v. California.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Ventura. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-481.
    International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 6, AFL-CIO v. San Francisco Electrical Contractors Assn., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-485.
    Texas Committee on Natural Resources v. Bergland, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-501.
    Koros et ux. v. Credit Bureau, Inc., of Georgia et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-509.
    28 East Jackson Enterprises, Inc. v. Rosewell, Treasurer of Cook County, Illinois, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-590.
    Blasco et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-632.
    Bullock et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-645.
    Martin et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5005.
    Easley v. Texas.
   Ct. Crina. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5074.
    Ranger et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5094.
    Mignona v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5101.
    Adams v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5120.
    Smith v. Brewer, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5138.
    Lewis et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5151.
    Wiggins v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   Ct. Crina. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5178.
    Boyer v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5270.
    Proctor v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5276.
    Mowat et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5295.
    Etley et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5305.
    Jenkins v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5307.
    Edwards v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5331.
    Carter v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5336.
    Harper v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5365.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5394.
    Myers v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5439.
    Rawley v. Rawley et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5459.
    LaRuffa v. Fogg, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5461.
    Mahler v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5462.
    Hebert v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Cer-tiorari denied:


text:
    No. 78-5463.
    White v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5467.
    Jakob v. First Alabama Bank of Montgomery.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5468.
    Turpen v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5470.
    McKibben v. Hopper, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5473.
    Alvarez v. American Export Lines, Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5474.
    Lomax v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5476.
    Nabkey v. Michigan State Highway Commission.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5477.
    West v. Smith, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5479.
    Hammer v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5481.
    Boyd v. Delaware.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5484.
    Green v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5485.
    McDaniel v. Oklahoma.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5492.
    Fowler v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5497.
    Childs v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5499.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5503.
    Hall v. Anderson, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5517.
    Clayton v. Loggins, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5528.
    Schafer v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5546.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5557.
    Ritch v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5579.
    Bradley v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5585.
    Sturgis v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1863.
    Mitchell, Warden v. Nottingham.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-180.
    Leeke, Corrections Commissioner, et al. v. Gordon; and Collins, Warden v. Young.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 574 F. 2d 1147.


text:
    No. 78-182.
    Serwold et ux. v. Nelson.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Stephen W. Holohan for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-317.
    DuPont Glore Forgan, Inc., et al. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Mr. Justice Brennan,

text:
    No. 78-5177.
    Harris v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice Marshall joins,

dissenting.

In 1971 a grocery store clerk in Tulsa, Okla., was shot and killed during the course of a robbery of the store. Petitioner has undergone two separate trials based on two separate charges arising out of this event. Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CRF-73-228, on -July 19, 1973. On November 21, 1973, petitioner was convicted in a second trial of the crime of felony murder, the armed robbery providing an essential element of the crime. Case No. CRF-73-227. Claiming that his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment had been violated, petitioner sought postconviction relief in the District Court of Tulsa County, Okla. This relief was denied.

Petitioner then appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which ordered petitioner’s conviction for felony murder vacated because of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court stated:

“This order is made without prejudice to the trial of the said Floyd Harris on any charge of homicide which the facts and justice may warrant, not inconsistent with the views expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S. 161, . . . and Harris v. Oklahoma, [433 U. S. 682].” Order Reversing Denial of Post-Conviction Relief, No. PC-78-93 (June 5, 1978).

Petitioner subsequently filed with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals an application entitled Writ of Habeas Corpus or alternatively, Petition for Rehearing sua sponte, alleging that the court’s order in No. PC-78-93 was erroneous because in contravention of Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U. S. 682 (1977). The court denied petitioner’s application, stating:

“As petitioner’s trial on the charge of Murder in the First Degree is barred solely because the arm'ed robbery for which he was previously convicted is a necessary element of the murder conviction, the holding of Harris v. Oklahoma . . . does not prevent petitioner’s trial on a lesser degree of homicide which does not require proof of the armed robbery as a necessary element.” Order Denying Relief, No. H-78-322 (July 25, 1978).

The order of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals would permit petitioner to be tried on charges arising out of the same criminal transaction as that underlying petitioner’s conviction for armed robbery. Because I continue to adhere to my view, expressed in Harris v. Oklahoma, supra, at 683 (concurring opinion), that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the prosecution in one proceeding, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, of “all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction,” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring), I would grant the petition for certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in No. H-78-322. See Thompson v. Oklahoma, 429 U. S. 1053 (1977) (Brennan, J., dissenting), and cases collected therein.


text:
    No. 78-5489.
    Hall v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 78-464.
    Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., et al. v. Russell et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari and/or petition for writ of cer-tiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1589.
    No. 77-1616.
    No. 77-1816.
    No. 77-6691.
    No. 77-6696.
    No. 77-6712.
    Oliveti v. United States, Nelson v. Defense Logistics Agency, DiGilio et al. v. United States, Aldridge v. Florida, Lewis v. United States, Bridges v. United States,
   ante, p. 822;

ante, p. 824;

ante, p. 836;

ante, p. 882;

ante, p. 842; and

ante, p. 842. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 77-6932.
    No. 77-6988.
    No. 78-92.
    No. 78-5055.
    No. 78-5085.
    No. 78-5092.
    No. 78-5147.
    No. 78-5186.
    No. 78-5238.
    No. 78-5280.
    Coomes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Bloch et ux. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., First National Bank of Memphis v. Smith et al., Mazzeffi v. Schwanke, dba Ashland & Waveland Service Station, et al., Hamilton v. Department of Social Services of New York City, Human Resources Administration, Alexander v. Delaware State Bar Assn., Baloun v. Helferty, Shadd v. United States Board of Parole et al., Kavanaugh v. Grundman et al., Good Shield v. United States,
   ante, p. 854;

ante, p. 807;

ante, p. 883;

ante, p. 869;

ante, p. 870;

ante, p. 808;

ante, p. 872;

ante, p. 815;

ante, p. 897; and

ante, p. 898. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 77-6869.
    Stuart v. Emory University, Inc., et al.,
   ante, p. 882. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    November 14, 1978
    No. 78-450.
    United States v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 60.


text:
    November 27, 1978
    No. 78-553.
    Automotive Service Councils of Michigan et al. v. Austin, Secretary of State of Michigan.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Mich, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 78-5486.
    Ridzon v. Mollenkopf, Director, Board of Elections of Columbiana County.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petiton for writ of cer-tiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5560.
    Bell v. Bell et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 5th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of cer-tiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-2.
    Illinois v. Vitale.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to consider whether judgment based upon federal or state constitutional grounds, or both. See California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33 (1972).

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 78-370.
    City of West Haven v. Turpin.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York City, 436 U. S. 658 (1978).


text:
    No. A-437.
    Thies v. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Application for stay, addressed to Mr. Justice Powell and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-460 (78-5716).
    McCrory v. Kirk.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay, addressed to Mr. Justice Marshall, and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-135.
    In re Disbarment of Kutza.
    [For earlier order herein, see 436 U. S. 943.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-144.
    In re Disbarment of Hirsch.
   It is ordered that Burton G. Hirsch of Phoenix, Ariz., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-145.
    In re Disbarment of Shaker.
   It is ordered that Donald J. Shaker, of Pittsfield, Mass., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-146.
    In re Disbarment of Teitelbaum.
   It is ordered that Myron Teitelbaum, of Dayton, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-147.
    IN RE DISBARMENT OF PENCE.
   It is ordered that Richard F. Pence, of Parkersburg, W. Va., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-148.
    IN RE DISBARMENT OF CLEM.
   It is ordered that Maurice Curran Clem, Jr., of Henderson, Ky., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 80,
    Orig.
    Colorado v. New Mexico et al.
   Motion for leave to file bill of complaint granted and defendants allowed 60 days in which to answer.


text:
    No. 76-1471.
    No. 76-1521.
    No. 76-1595.
    No. 76-1604.
    No. 76-1624.
    No. 76-1685.
    Federal Communications Commission v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting et al.; Channel Two Television Co. et al. v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting et al.; National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission et al.; American Newspaper Publishers Assn. v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting et al.; Illinois Broadcasting Co., Inc., et al. v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting et al.; and Post Co. et al. v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting et al.,
   436 U. S. 775. Motion of National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting to waive or retax costs denied.

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


text:
    No. 77-926.
    Cannon v. University of Chicago et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 438 U. S. 914.] Motion of Equal Employment Advisory Council for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 77-1465.
    No. 77-1491.
    Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Rasmussen et al.; and Geo Control, Inc., et al. v. Rasmussen et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 436 U. S. 955.] Motion of petitioners for divided argument granted. Motion of the Solicitor General to permit Kent L. Jones, Esquire, to present oral argument pro hac vice granted.


text:
    No. 77-1680.
    Michigan v. DeFillippo.
   Ct. App. Mich. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 816.] Motion of respondent for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that James C. Howarth, Esquire, of Detroit, Mich., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 77-1578.
    No. 77-1583.
    Broadcast Music, Inc., et al. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., et al.; and American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers et al. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 817.] Motion of the Solicitor General for additional time to present oral argument on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae denied. Time allotted for oral argument is divided as follows: 30 minutes to petitioners, 15 minutes to the Solicitor General as amicus curiae, and 45 minutes to respondents.


text:
    No. 77-1654.
    Consumer Energy Council of America v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 817.] Motion of petitioner to substitute Consumer Energy Council of America in place of Consumer Federation of America, Energy Policy Task Force, granted.

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


text:
    No. 77-1724.
    Burks et al. v. Lasker et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 816.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae granted and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose.


text:
    No. 77-6673.
    Brown v. Texas.
   County Ct. at Law No. 2, El Paso County, Tex. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 909.] Motion of Joe B. Dibrell, Jr., Esquire, to permit Renea Hicks, Esquire, to present oral argument pro hac vice granted.


text:
    No. 78-201.
    Greenholtz, Chairman, Board of Parole of Nebraska, et al. v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 817.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae granted and 15 additonal minutes allotted for that purpose.


text:
    No. 78-421.
    No. 78-486.
    Dahlberg Electronics, Inc., et al. v. Kievlan et al. Council for Employment and Economic Energy Use v. WHDH Corp. et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist.; and

C. A. 1st Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 78-761.
    American Telephone & Telegraph Co. et al. v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of petitioners to expedite consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5388.
    No. 78-5505.
    Ford v. Muir, U. S. District Judge, et al.; and Picking v. Baltimore County, Maryland, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 78-425.
    P. C. Pfeiffer Co., Inc., et al. v. Ford et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 78-488.
    United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Monroe and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 78-511.
    Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York.
   App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 9th and 10th Jud. Dists. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 78-99.
    Parker v. Randolph et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motions of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 78-309.
    Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, Trustee, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 78-5066.
    Dunaway v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 77-1765.
    Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Jones et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1848.
    Sprayregen v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1860.
    Rankin v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1861.
    Ogden v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6768.
    Mayes v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6819.
    Rochon v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-128.
    Kranco, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-159.
    Carsello v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-178.
    Maulding et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-194.
    Champion Oil Co., Inc. v. Herbert, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources of Alaska, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-209.
    No. 78-5203.
    No. 78-5204.
    French v. United States; Boehm v. United States; and Payne v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-216.
    No. 78-217.
    No. 78-270.
    United States Independent Telephone Assn. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. et al.; American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. et al.; and Federal Communications Commission v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 188 U. S. App. D. C. 327, 580 F. 2d 590.


text:
    No. 78-231.
    Harper v. Feldman et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-234.
    Niederberger v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-241.
    Arpeja-California, Inc. v. Cohane.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-242.
    Anderson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-258.
    Mehta v. Guillemin.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-279.
    Piluso v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-281.
    No. 78-284.
    Weiner et al. v. United States; and Lichtig v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 578 F. 2d 757.


text:
    No. 78-305.
    Comden et ux. v. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, et al. (Doris Day Distributing Co. et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-318.
    Dallas Power & Light Co. et al. v. Central Power & Light Co. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-324.
    Pierorazio et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-326.
    Chamber of Commerce of the United States ex rel. Boise Cascade Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-328.
    No. 78-333.
    Chambers v. United States; and Griffin v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 579 F. 2d 1104.


text:
    No. 78-336.
    Allen et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-341.
    Mains et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-363.
    Grasso v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-365.
    Creps v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-379.
    House, Superintendent of the Greensboro City Schools, et al. v. Stewart, Assistant Area Director, Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Department of Labor, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-382.
    No. 78-390.
    Streeter v. United States; and Dyar v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied. Reported below: 574 F. 2d 1385.


text:
    No. 78-402.
    Meier v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-412.
    Livingston et al. v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-413.
    Bowen, Governor of Indiana, et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 78-414.
    United Air Lines, Inc. v. State Human Rights Appeal Board et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-418.
    Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Federal Trade Commission.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-458.
    DeSoto Parish School Board et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-466.
    Modla v. Bell, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-477.
    West Side Women's Services, Inc., et al. v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-500.
    Brown v. Danley, Administrator.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-506.
    Bower v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-513.
    Tracy, Judge v. Dixon et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-515.
    Fehr Bros., Inc. v. Acciaierie Weissenfels et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-519.
    Brainerd v. Flannery.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-521.
    Yiamouyiannis v. Chemical Abstracts Service et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-522.
    Wentz et al. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer~io-ran denied.


text:
    No. 78-525.
    Wilmorite, Inc., et al. v. Eagan Real Estate, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-527.
    Courier-Newsom Express, Inc. v. Martin Imports.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-534.
    Welsh et al. v. Kinchla et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-539.
    Mize et al. v. Darrow et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-541.
    Delta Refrigeration Co. v. Upjohn Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-545.
    Moore v. Supreme Court of South Carolina et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-552.
    Builta v. General Electric Credit Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-554.
    Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America v. Zimmer, Trustee.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-555.
    Warren v. Kuiper, State Engineer, Colorado Ground Water Commission, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-556.
    Bloch et al. v. Bloch.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-564.
    Watkins et ux. v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N, Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-565.
    Local Union No. 513, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. Vandeventer.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-566.
    Powell v. Syracuse University et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-568.
    Arriaza et al. v. Crocker National Bank.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-573.
    Melton v. Bow.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-576.
    Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-578.
    In re Steinberger.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-593.
    South Carolina National Bank v. North Carolina National Bank.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-595.
    Lone Star Gas Co. v. Bullock, Comptroller of Public Accounts, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-601.
    Schultze et ux. v. Chevron Oil Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-626.
    Long v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-662.
    Irvin v. United States Civil Service Commission.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-667.
    Amend v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-670.
    Hanks v. United States Attorney et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-723.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5015.
    Bean et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5063.
    Christian v. Hogan et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5168.
    No. 78-5200.
    Jones v. United States; and Holt v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 582 F. 2d 1281.


text:
    No. 78-5180.
    Johnson v. Alexander, Secretary of the Army, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5195.
    No. 78-5436.
    Carver v. United States; and Curtis v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 582 F. 2d 1284.


text:
    No. 78-5208.
    Heimerle v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5216.
    Locks v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5247.
    Mayfield v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5262.
    Ho Yin Wong v. United States District Court for the Central District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5268.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5277.
    Knuckles v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5293.
    Gaias et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5317.
    Mosley v. United States Department of Labor et al
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5320.
    Morris v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5328.
    Kortright v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5343.
    Landrum v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5350.
    Hilton v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5356.
    Driver v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5370.
    Wishart v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5372.
    Goodwin v. Morris, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5377.
    Pifer v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5382.
    Yates v. United States Civil Service Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5383.
    Rosenberg v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5387.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5391.
    Dixon v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5392.
    Leal v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5412.
    Hawpetoss v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5417.
    Collins v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5426.
    Jones v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5446.
    Mendoza v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5447.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5495.
    Talley v. Forest City Foundries Co. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5500.
    Mason v. Zahradnick, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5501.
    Hollis v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5509.
    Lloyd v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5512.
    Nicholas v. Tennessee Department of Employment Security et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5514.
    Norkett v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5516.
    Bruce v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5518.
    Turpin v. City of West Haven.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5521.
    McMahon v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.
   Pa. Commw. Ct. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5523.
    Catanzaro v. Masco Corp.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5524.
    Wern v. City of Centerville, Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Montgomery County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5525.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5530.
    Salter v. Johnston, Sheriff.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5534.
    Peterson et al. v. Puerto Rico.
   Sup. Ct. P. R. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5536.
    Harmon v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5537.
    Garza v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5538.
    In re Welfare of A. R. W. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5539.
    Clifton v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5543.
    Hinchcliffe v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5545.
    Holsey v. Collins, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5547.
    Brightwell v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5549.
    Sherril v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5565.
    O’Calagan (Cerezo) v. Government of the Canal Zone.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5572.
    O’Bryant v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5584.
    Alexander v. Smith, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5588.
    McClendon v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5595.
    Jimenez (Gonzalez) v. Government of the Canal Zone.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5596.
    Kruckeberg v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5602.
    Key v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5603.
    Bloch et ux. v. Suffolk County Federal Savings & Loan Assn.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5607.
    Cleckler v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5608.
    Brown v. Blackburn, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5614.
    Vogel v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5616.
    Vines v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5622.
    Hamnett v. Michigan Conference of Teamsters Welfare Fund et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5624.
    Seawell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5627.
    Jernigan v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5628.
    Chase v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5634.
    Mahler v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5637.
    Beasley v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 76-6882.
    No. 78-5225.
    No. 78-5490.
    No. 78-5544.
    Meeks v. Florida. Duffy v. Texas. Alderman v. Georgia. Stephens v. Hopper, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. ;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.; and

Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 76-6882, 339 So. 2d 186; No. 78-5225, 567 S. W. 2d 197; No. 78-5490, 241 Ga. 496, 246 S. E. 2d 642; No. 78-5544, 241 Ga. 596, 247 S. E. 2d 92.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


author: Mr. Justice Powell,

text:
    No. 77-1556.
    Berg et al. v. Berger.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Powell,

with whom Mr. Justice Rehnquist joins,

dissenting.

Respondent, a nontenured public school teacher, was dismissed from her job in May 1975, following months of disagreement and dissension with her supervisors. The situation came to a head about six weeks before her dismissal. An informal conference was arranged and respondent, accompanied by her counsel, met with several school administrators to discuss her performance as a teacher. Although the meeting lasted for some time, it was confined primarily to an extensive cross-examination by respondent’s counsel of the school administrators. The meeting was terminated inconclusively because respondent’s counsel insisted upon a “specific written statement of charges” as a precondition of his client’s full participation in the meeting and “never allowed her to speak.”

After conferring among themselves, the administrators, petitioners here, decided that the problems arising from respondent’s conduct were sufficiently severe to merit an immediate recommendation of dismissal to the Board of Education. Their report to the Board referred to over 90 memoranda respondent had written to her principals during the past year about urgent problems with her students, emergencies which upon investigation were determined to be nonexistent or exaggerated; over 60 telephone calls to principals and parents, the maj'ority of which were threatening and harassing; and five incidents in which she had called the police into her classroom without cause and in violation of school policy. The report mentioned one incident where respondent had impersonated a parent and threatened other parents with a lawsuit. Following petitioners’ recommendation, the Board discharged respondent for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher.

Respondent filed an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, accusing petitioners of having engaged in a malicious conspiracy to violate her rights under, inter alia, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioners, ruling that “there is no genuine issue of fact to be submitted to the trier of fact” and concluding that petitioners “are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed. It perceived that the case turned on whether respondent had been deprived of a property or liberty interest without due process of law, and it found disputed issues of fact on this question. Respondent might be able to prove either that she had a property right to serve out the balance of her contract term or that the public dissemination of the charges against her created a stigma that infringed a protected liberty interest. Judge Pell dissented.

I would grant the petition for certiorari and summarily reverse. Even if respondent were able to prove the existence of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest, it seems clear that the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause were met on the facts of this case. Judge Pell appears to have been correct in observing:

“It needs no reading between the lines of the record presented to us to discern that the [petitioners], exercising their functions of operating the school system, terminated a non-tenured teacher who was seriously detrimental to the proper accomplishment of the educational aims of the school.”

With respect to the procedures followed here, Judge Pell noted:

“[T]his non-tenured teacher received the due process to which she was entitled by virtue of her status. She was given a meeting with school authorities who were willing to discuss with her and her attorney the difficulties which she was causing in the school where she was purporting to teach. The attorney’s tactics on that occasion subverted the effort.”

Our decisions in Board of Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U. S. 78 (1978); Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975); and Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886 (1961), have emphasized that the requirements of due process are flexible, varying according to the situation involved and interests implicated. It is abundantly clear that respondent and her supervisory authorities had been in a state of tension and disagreement for a period of months, and that respondent had full notice of the dissatisfaction with her performance. Finally, respondent was afforded a hearing with the appropriate school administrators at which she had the opportunity, with counsel present, to submit her views. It was at the instruction of her counsel that respondent did not speak in her own defense on this occasion. In sum, respondent received all process that she was due. See Board of Curators v. Horowitz, supra, at 85; Goss v. Lopez, supra, at 582.

      Dr. Robinson, one of the defendants, took notes of the meeting. His record of the events leading to the adjournment of the meeting was as follows:

        “Mr. Ditkowsky [counsel for Miss Berger]: Again, Dr. Robinson, I respectfully submit that since we do not have a specific written statement of charges, and furthermore, since the nature of some of these charges are components of a Court suit we already have against the Board of Education, I do not feel that my client’s participation in this meeting is proper. . . .

        “Dr. Robinson: Mr. Ditkowsky, will you allow your client to respond to any of the reported activities [ ?]

        “Mr. Ditkowsky: Yes, I will allow her to respond, but only for the sake of accommodation. Further, I would like the record to show that there should be a Court reporter present, and the charges should be made specifically in writing.
      " (At this point the matter of impersonating a parent was discussed at great length. It turned into an extensive cross-examination by Mr. Ditkowsky of Miss O’Shea and Mrs. Berg [principals under whom Miss Berger served]. Neither Miss O’Shea nor Mrs. Berg were prepared with supportive documentation nor were they prepared to undergo an extensive cross-examination. This cross-examination went on for twenty to thirty minutes, and it appeared that Mr. Ditkowsky was taking advantage of the principals. Occasionally Miss Berger tried to volunteer some information, but Mr. Ditkowsky never allowed her to speak. It took about thirty minutes to cover one reported activity, when Mrs. Whitten [counsel for the school board] intervened.)

        “Mrs. Whitten: Perhaps we should postpone this meeting to a time when we can supply you with a specific statement of charges and a time when the line administrators could have their supportive documentation available to them.

        “Mr. Ditkowsky: We would be agreeable to this.

        “Dr. Robinson: We will have to investigate with our Law Department as to whether or not under the State Statute it would be necessary for us to provide you with a written statement of charges which can be reviewed by you prior to any action by our Board of Education. You will be notified.”
      The Law Department advised petitioners that another meeting was not necessary. Instead, counsel for respondent was invited to review the documentation of Miss Berger’s misconduct which the principals had compiled.
      Respondent did not dispute this version of these events, but rather adopted it in her own pleadings. These notes provided substantial support for Dr. Robinson’s statement, contained in an answer to one of respondent’s interrogatories, that “[t]he entire purpose of the conference, which was to give Miss Berger an opportunity to respond to the allegations, was thwarted by her attorney, who would not allow her to respond.” Respondent did not controvert this statement by any counter-affidavit.


text:
    No. 78-173.
    King v. Norris.
   Ct. App. La., 3d Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certio-rari.


text:
    No. 78-352.
    Williams Pipe Line Co. et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Powell would grant cer-tiorari.


text:
    No. 78-257.
    Burnette-Carter Co. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 78-440.
    County of Sonoma et al. v. Isbell et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied for failure to file petition within time provided by 28 U. S. C. §2101 (c).

Mr. Justice Stevens, with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stewart join.

When a petition for certiorari is jurisdictionally untimely, should the Court so indicate in its order denying the writ? I think not, for these reasons: First, since a denial of certio-rari has no precedential value in any event, the notation serves no useful purpose. Second, since the question of timeliness is not always easy to answer, compare Department of Banking v. Pink, 317 U. S. 264, with Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. King County, 264 U. S. 22, and may produce different answers from different Members of the Court, even the decision to include that brief notation may consume valuable time. Third, because there is no consistency in the Court’s practice with regard to such notations, their spasmodic use may engender confusion and misunderstanding. Accordingly, I do not join in the Court’s statement.


text:
    No. 78-455.
    Mitchell, Warden v. Gibson.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-491.
    Alton & Southern Railway Co. et al. v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 78-579.
    Reuss, Member of House of Representatives v. Balles et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 78-510.
    Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Midwestern Gas Transmission Co.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 78-540.
    New York Times Co. et al. v. New Jersey et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Motion of American Newspaper Publishers Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 77-1288.
    No. 77-1432.
    No. 77-1523.
    No. 77-1586.
    No. 77-1600.
    No. 77-1631.
    No. 77-1643.
    No. 77-1655.
    No. 77-1661.
    No. 77-1689.
    Quaglino v. California, Kilrain et al. v. United States, Miller v. United States, Keech et al. v. United States et al., Gillring Oil Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Ridgill et ux. v. Reston Homeowners Assn., Houltin v. United States, Howell v. Thomas, Sheriff, March et ux. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. et al., Litton Systems, Inc. v. United States,
   ante, p. 875;

ante, p. 819;

ante, p. 821 ;

ante, p. 822;

ante, p. 823;

ante, p. 805;

ante, p. 826;

ante, p. 826;

ante, p. 826; and

ante, p. 828. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 77-1725.
    No. 77-1737.
    No. 77-1781.
    No. 77-1787.
    No. 77-1796.
    No. 77-1825.
    No. 77-1834.
    No. 77-1849.
    No. 77-6217.
    No. 77-6537.
    No. 77-6604.
    No. 77-6728.
    No. 77-6759.
    No. 77-6767.
    No. 77-6897.
    No. 77-6900.
    No. 78-66.
    No. 78-261.
    No. 78-371.
    No. 78-5016.
    No. 78-5098
    No. 78-5240.
    Coleco Industries, Inc. v. Berman et al., Roloff Evangelistic Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Texas, Rabco Metal Products, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Giacalone v. United States, Metro Club, Inc. v. Metro Passbook, Inc., et al., Arthur et al. v. Clay Community Schools et al.; and Tolin et al. v. Southwest Parke Community School Corp. et al., Lang v. City of Philadelphia et al., Chicago Sheraton Corp. v. Zaban et al., Stacy v. Florida, Spears et al. v. United States, Little v. Nebraska, Phillips v. United States, O’Leary v. Palmer et al., Peacock v. Cox et vir, Kennick v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. et al., Mackey v. Florida, Angelino et al. v. Dodson et al., Independent Investor Protective League et al. v. Touche Ross & Co., Bernstein v. United States, Sayles v. Sales, Noone v. Dart Drug Corp., Hughes v. Texas,
   ante, p. 830;

ante, p. 803;

ante, p. 833;

ante, p. 834;

ante, p. 834;

ante, p. 806;

ante, p. 804;

ante, p. 888;

436 U. S. 924;

ante, p. 839;

ante, p. 809;

ante, p. 826;

ante, p. 844;

ante, p. 845;

ante, p. 852;

ante, p. 807;

ante, p. 883;

ante, p. 895;

ante, p. 895;

ante, p. 868;

ante, p. 871; and

ante, p. 903. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 78-5296.
    No. 78-5315.
    No. 78-5353.
    No. 78-5380.
    Hornick v. Young Women's Christian Association of Madison, Wisconsin, Inc., Phillips v. Snyder et al., Campbell v. Michigan, Hemmerle et ux. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of DeSoto County,
   ante, p. 888;

ante, p. 898;

ante, p. 899; and

ante, p. 921. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    November 30, 1978
    No. 78-655.
    Pinkus, dba Rosslyn News Co. et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 60.


text:
    December 4, 1978
    No. 78-70.
    Wilkes County, Georgia, et al. v. United States.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. D. C.


text:
    No. 78-439.
    Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. et al. v. Council on Water Company Lands of Connecticut et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Conn.

Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist would vacate judgment and remand case for further consideration in light of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U. S. 104 (1978).


text:
    No. 78-5258.
    Perillo v. Department of Public Welfare of Pennsylvania.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Stevens would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 78-574.
    Gibson Distributing Co., Inc., et al. v. Downtown Development Association of El Paso, Inc.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Tex. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Notice of appeal was not filed within the time provided by 28 U. S. C. § 2101 (c).


text:
    No. 78-5408.
    Morpurgo v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 2d Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. A-333.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Application for reduction of bond, addressed to Mr. Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-404 (78-708).
    Greene et ux. v. United States.
   Application for recall and stay of mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, addressed to Mr. Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-472 (78-621).
    Village of Carpentersville v. Limperis, Trustee in Bankruptcy.
   Application for stay of judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, entered July 14, 1978, addressed to Mr. Justice White, and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 78-329.
    No. 78-330.
    Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al. v. Baird et al.; and Hunerwadel v. Baird et al.
   D. C. Mass. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 925.] Motion of appel-lees Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts et al. for additional time for oral argument denied. Alternative motion for divided argument granted. Motion of appellees Baird et al. to strike appearance of counsel for Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts et al. denied.


text:
    No. 76-1234.
    No. 76-1261.
    Harris, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al. v. Ross et al. Harris, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al. v. Abrams et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir.; and

C. A. 9th Cir. [Cer-tiorari granted, 431 U. S. 928.] Motion of the Solicitor General, with consent of respondents, for reference to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland [in No. 76-1234], and for reference to the United States District Court for the Central District of California [in No. 76-1261], to consider settlement granted.


text:
    No. 78-90.
    Burch et al. v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 925.] Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing appendix granted.


text:
    No. 78-432.
    No. 78-435.
    No. 78-436.
    United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber et al.; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Weber et al.; and United States et al. v. Weber et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Government Contract Employers Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 78-5283.
    Jackson v. Virginia et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 78-5374.
    Smith v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 77-6979.
    Pierce v. Jago, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-166.
    Plaquemines Parish School Board v. Broussard et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-271.
    No. 78-469.
    Dinko v. United States; and Dinko v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 573 F. 2d 1297.


text:
    No. 78-296.
    Salvucci v. Revere Racing Assn., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-340.
    No. 78-396.
    No. 78-398.
    No. 78-5313.
    Hamilton et al. v. United States; Fitzgerald v. United States; Kovach v. United States; and Leahu v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 579 F. 2d 1014.


text:
    No. 78-353.
    Luigi Goldstein, Inc. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-369.
    Shannon et al. v. Department of Housing and Urban Development et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-408.
    Ducharme et vir v. Merrill-National Laboratories et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-433.
    Gordon Transports, Inc., et al. v. Highway & City Freight Drivers, Dockmen & Helpers, Local Union No. 600.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-441.
    Allied International Products, Ltd. v. Textron Industries, Inc.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-442.
    OTM Corp. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-445.
    Anderson, Director, Department of Registration and Education of Illinois v. Barasa et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-448.
    Wright et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-461.
    Norton v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-487.
    Marques-Uria v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-570.
    Premier Corp. v. Shevin, Shapo & Shevin, P. A.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-583.
    Herrmann v. Moore et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-584.
    Robinson v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-596.
    Russ et al. v. Ratliff.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-598.
    Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. et al. v. Hasty.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-613.
    Rutledge et al. v. Long, Personnel Director, Department of Administration of Kansas, et al.
   Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-616.
    Markus v. Ross, Industrial Commissioner of New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-620.
    Atkinson, Administrator v. Bass et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-628.
    Hutter v. Lake View Trust & Savings Bank et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-631.
    Bush v. Webster, Mayor of Gu-Win, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-635.
    Acousti Engineering Company of Florida v. Sea et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-636.
    Fagnan v. Great Central Insurance Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-643.
    Rockwell International Corp. v. Kirk.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-644.
    Lee Klinger Volkswagen, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-648.
    City of San Antonio v. San Pedro North, Ltd., et al.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 4th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-715.
    Fitzgerald v. Staats, Comptroller General, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5166.
    Rudolph v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5212.
    Wright v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5242.
    Drennon v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5273.
    Connor et ux. v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5275.
    Gorecki v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5341.
    Von Reed v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5355.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5360.
    Parker v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5375.
    Gallagher v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5396.
    Rayo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5401.
    Haley v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5409.
    Fierro-Soza v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5418.
    No. 78-5452.
    No. 78-5453.
    Aguilera et al. v. United States; Aguiar et al. v. United States; and Miranda et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 579 F. 2d 641.


text:
    No. 78-5425.
    Torres et al. v. Ramos et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5443.
    York v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5445.
    Stone v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5451.
    No. 78-5465.
    Prince et al. v. United States; and Foster v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 190 U. S. App. D. C. 16, 584 F. 2d 997.


text:
    No. 78-5475.
    Martina v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5513.
    Homan v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5558.
    Hoffman v. Blackburn, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5561.
    Bailey v. Mitchell, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5566.
    Monroe v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5567.
    Macumber v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5568.
    Reich v. Dow Badische Co. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5642.
    Adams v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5655.
    Martin v. Cooper, U. S. Parole Commissioner, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5676.
    Worchester v. Crisp, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


author: Mr. Justice Rehnquist,

text:
    No. 77-1464.
    No. 77-1467.
    No. 78-222.
    Huch et al. v. United States; South Park Independent School District v. United States; and Board of Education for the City of Valdosta, Georgia v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: Nos. 77-1464 and 77-1467, 566 F. 2d 1221; No. 78-222, 576 F. 2d 37.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,

with whom Mr. Justice Powell joins,

dissenting.

Efforts to describe the complex of factors that go into a decision by this Court to deny certiorari in any given case date back at least to the opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U. S. 912 (1950), and I shall make no attempt to embroider them here. Some Members of the Court may feel that a case is wrongly decided, but lacking in general importance; others may feel that it is of general importance, but rightly decided; for either reason, a vote to deny certiorari is logically dictated. In these cases it seems to me demonstrable that the Court of Appeals has not properly assessed the relationship between Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1 (1971), and Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U. S. 424 (1976). Obviously we cannot review in this Court every school desegregation case decided by a Court of Appeals, and particularly where, as here, the Court of Appeals merely remands the case to the District Court for further proceedings, there is a very natural tendency to conclude that the decisions of the Court of Appeals are not deserving of plenary review given the almost unmanageable caseload of the Court. But the Court of Appeals from which these cases come historically has had to decide more school desegregation cases than any other Court of Appeals, and the interminable pendency of school desegregation litigation resulting from remand orders such as these is precisely what was condemned in Pasadena, supra. I would therefore grant certiorari to review the orders of the Court of Appeals remanding these cases to their respective District Courts.

I

Nos. 77-14&4 and 77-1467. South Park Independent School District

The United States brought this action in 1970, and in that same year the District Court adopted a school desegregation plan submitted by the district, “with certain modifications designed to increase the overall percentage of integration at particular schools.” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 77-1467, pp. 0 — 1—C-2 (hereinafter cited as Pet.). Since no party sought to appeal, the District Court’s order became final. Almost six years later, the United States filed a motion for “supplemental relief,” seeking an order requiring the district to “develop, adopt and implement a comprehensive school desegregation plan.” The Government’s motion, it should be noted, was filed after this Court’s decision in Pasadena, supra. The motion was supported largely by the Government’s assertion that during the 1975-1976 school term, 75.1% of all black students in the system attended schools that were 92% or more black, while 77.5% of all white students attended schools that were 86% or more white. The School District filed a reply, a group of parents successfully sought to intervene, and two separate hearings on the Government’s motion were held in the District Court. The School District called witnesses in support of its petition; the Government called none.

The court concluded from the evidence before it that the 1970 desegregation order had dissolved all vestiges of a dual system. Noting that in each academic year since entry of the 1970 order total student enrollment in the district had consistently declined, while the percentage of black students enrolled in the district had steadily increased, the District Court found that “[t]he desegregative results differing from those anticipated in 1970 have been the result of shifting residential patterns, attendance of some district students at private schools, and other factors beyond the control of defendant [school district] . . . Pet. B-5. The court also found that the School District had complied with the 1970 order in all respects and had taken no action having a natural and foreseeable segregative effect on schools in the district. Student class assignments in the district had been made without regard to race or color, and no state agency had attempted to alter the residential or demographic patterns affecting the comprehensive neighborhood attendance plan set forth in the 1970 order. Concluding that no further action on its part was constitutionally required, the District Court denied the motion for supplemental relief.

The Court of Appeals believed that this case was governed by a single passage from Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S., at 26, removed from its context, describing the duty of district courts to scrutinize initial desegregation plans proposed by school boards for systems with a history of segregation where such plans contemplate the continuance of some schools that “are all or predominantly of one race.” I think that the Court of Appeals erred in applying this particular passage from Swann to a school desegregation plan which had been accepted by all parties at the time of its inception, and had been in effect for six years before the Government decided to seek supplemental relief. In Swann itself this Court acknowledged the reality that minority groups are often found concentrated in particular parts of metropolitan areas. Recognizing that demographic patterns can be affected by natural human migration as well as by official discrimination, the Swann court observed:

“Neither school authorities nor district courts are constitutionally required to make year-by-year adjustments of the racial composition of student bodies once the affirmative duty to desegregate has been accomplished and racial discrimination through official action is eliminated from the system. ... [I]n the absence of a showing that either the school authorities or some other agency of the State has deliberately attempted to fix or alter demographic patterns to affect the racial composition of the schools, further intervention by a district court should not be necessary.” Id., at 31-32.

This language was brought into sharper focus in Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U. S. 424 (1976). Petitioner in Pasadena sought in 1974 to be relieved of a provision of a 1970 desegregation order requiring that there be no majority of any minority at any Pasadena school. Although the 1970 order had established a racially neutral system of student assignment in Pasadena, a “normal pattern of human migration” over the following four years had caused some Pasadena schools to “sli[p] out of compliance” with the no-majority-of-any-minority requirement. The District Court denied relief, apparently believing it had authority to impose the requirement upon Pasadena schools regardless of what had caused the post-1971 change in their racial composition. We held that the District Court lacked such authority:

“[T]he District Court was not entitled to require [Pasadena] to rearrange its attendance zones each year so as to ensure that the racial mix desired by the court was maintained in perpetuity. For having once implemented a racially neutral attendance pattern in order to remedy the perceived constitutional violations on the part of the defendants, the District Court had fully performed its function of providing the appropriate remedy for previous racially discriminatory attendance patterns.” Id., at 436-437.

The thrust of Swann and Pasadena, when taken together, is that a district court must heed the Swann mandate to closely scrutinize predominantly one-race schools when approving an initial desegregation plan in a school district with a history of de jure segregation, but that the District Court has no obligation, indeed, has no authority, to monitor the plan indefinitely to make sure that the initial Swann requirements are maintained year after year in spite of demographic changes which are in no way attributable to the school board. A unanimous Court in Swann made clear that the Constitution requires the dismantling of dual school systems, but does not mandate racial balance in schools. This principle was reaffirmed in Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717, 740-741 (1974).

Here the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the District Court had found “no basis for relief since the 1970 plan had desegregated the school district thereby dissolving all vestiges of a dual school system.” United States v. South Park Independent School Dist., 566 F. 2d 1221, 1224 (CA5 1978). After expressly observing that it did not view the case as “a situation where a district court has refused to rule,” the Court of Appeals nonetheless found the District Court's holding that the School District was unitary “not detailed enough to show us whether or not the school system, meets [the] Swann requirement.” Id., at 1225. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the District Court for “supplemental findings of fact.”

I believe the Court of Appeals was wrong in its analysis of Fourteenth Amendment law when it implied that Swann rather than Pasadena would apply to a situation in which there had been in effect for six years a school desegregation plan fully accepted by all of the parties, including the United States. But more importantly, this case has an unsettling precedential potential for similar cases throughout the federal-court system. The Court of Appeals' opinion gives no clue to the District Court as to where it went wrong or how it can correct whatever mistake the Court of Appeals believes that it made. So far as I can tell from the remand order of the Court of Appeals, the District Court appears condemned to a fate akin to that of Sisyphus, the mythical King of Corinth who was sentenced by Zeus to an eternity in Hades trying “to roll a rock uphill which forever rolled back upon him.” Such a result, in my view, represents a departure “from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings” sufficient to warrant a grant of certiorari pursuant to our Rule 19 (1) (b).

II

No. 78-222. Board of Education for the City of Valdosta v. United States

In Board of Education for the City of Valdosta v. United States, 576 F. 2d 37 (CA5 1978), another panel of the Fifth Circuit relied upon the decision in South Park as “the law of school desegregation as currently understood in this Circuit.” 576 F. 2d, at 38 (emphasis added). There the United States moved in 1976 for supplemental relief to "correct” the racial imbalance that had developed in certain Valdosta elementary schools since entry of the District Court’s desegregation plan in 1971. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court found that the school board had followed the 1971 desegregation order to the letter and that any racial imbalance in Valdosta schools “exists . . . not because of any action or inaction on the part of the Defendant Board of Education, but . . . simply because of a change in housing patterns which has occurred since the date of the Court’s original order . . . .” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 78-222, p. 5c. Having found the Valdosta school system unitary, the District Court denied the Government’s motion for supplemental relief.

On appeal the Court of Appeals rejected the contention that the District Court’s holding was compelled by Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler. Relying on South Park for the propositon that “the continued existence of a significant number of virtually one-race schools is constitutionally suspect,” the court held that the “high incidence of racially identifiable schools belies the school board’s contention that Valdosta has achieved a unitary school system. 576 F. 2d, at 38. Accordingly, the case was “remanded to the district court for the development of a plan . . . designed to alleviate the incidence of virtually one-race elementary schools.” Ibid.

The Court of Appeals, having based its decision solely on statistics indicating that there were five racially identifiable elementary schools in Valdosta in 1976, undoubtedly acknowledged but can hardly be said to have heeded this Court’s observation in Swann, 402 U. S., at 26, that “the existence of some small number of one-race . . . schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law.” Before a district court can move under the Constitution to “correct” racially imbalanced schools, it must be shown that the imbalance was in some manner “caused by segregative actions chargeable to [school authorities]Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U. S., at 435. There is no indication in the Court of Appeals’ opinion that the Government carried its burden of proving that the racial mix of Valdosta’s elementary schools was the product of official discrimination, either present or past. Absent such a showing in the record, the District Court’s finding that Valdosta had achieved a unitary school system cannot be held to be clearly erroneous. See Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U. S. 406, 417-418 (1977). Accordingly, I dissent from the Court’s denial of certiorari in this case.

       The District Court also based its denial of the motion for supplemental relief on the Government’s failure to comply with 20 U. S. C. § 1758, which in essence requires that local school authorities be given notice and a reasonable opportunity to develop a voluntary remedial plan before any existing court-approved desegregation plan may be modified.

       “ ‘Where the school authority’s proposed plan for conversion from a dual to a unitary system contemplates the continued existence of some schools that are all or predominantly of one race, they have the burden of showing that such school assignments are genuinely nondiscriminatory. The court should scrutinize such schools, and the burden upon the school authorities will be to satisfy the court that their racial composition is not the result of present or past discriminatory action on their part.’ ” United States v. South Park Independent School Dist., 566 F. 2d 1221, 1225 (CA5 1978), quoting Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S., at 26.

       Indeed, the District Court noted, that “[t]he Department of Health, Education and Welfare, an agency of [the Government] charged with such responsibility, has approved student integration procedures in defendant district in each academic school year from entry of the Court’s order to the present, and prospectively, for academic school year 1977-78.” Pet. B-5.

       E. Hamilton, Mythology 439-440 (1945).