text:
    No. 78-5257.
    McFarland v. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 78-5259.
    Tarrance v. Bordenkircher, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5261.
    Hawkins v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuya-hoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5269.
    Bolts v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5280.
    Good Shield v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5287.
    Grogan v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5300.
    Gonzales v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5301.
    Gibson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5306.
    No. 78-5308.
    Cruz-Beltran v. United States; and Cruz-Beltran v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 578 F. 2d 870.


text:
    No. 78-5309.
    Mitchell et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5312.
    Pinckney v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5315.
    Phillips v. Snyder et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5319.
    Auten v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5325.
    Dobson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5353.
    Campbell v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1756.
    Sherwood v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant the petition and reverse the conviction.


text:
    No. 77-6946.
    Allen et al. v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant the petition and reverse the conviction.


text:
    No. 77-6962.
    Wood v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certio-rari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant the petition and reverse the conviction.


text:
    No. 78-131.
    Mascolo et al. v. Massachusetts.
   Ct. App. Mass. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant the petition and reverse the conviction.


text:
    No. 78-207.
    Dobbs v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certio-rari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant the petition and reverse the conviction.


text:
    No. 77-1822.
    Indiana v. Martin.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Mr. Justice Blackmun,

text:
    No. 78-188.
    Mellon Bank, N. A. v. Southland Mobile Homes of South Carolina, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

This case raises a substantial issue concerning state-court venue of a transitory cause of action asserted against a national bank. For me, the issue merits plenary consideration, and I dissent from the Court’s denial of certiorari insofar as the case concerns one of the two respondents.

Petitioner Mellon Bank, N. A., is a national banking association with principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pa. In 1972, respondent Associates Financial Services Company, Inc., and Mellon executed an agreement under which Associates was to seek out mobile-home dealers whose time-sale contracts for retail sales of mobile homes could be financed by Mellon. Respondent Southland Mobile Homes of South Carolina, Inc., operated mobile-home retail sales lots in the State of South Carolina and was induced by Associates to enter Mellon’s mobile-home service program. As a consequence, Mellon directly financed a number of Southland’s sales. The program provided for Mellon’s release to Southland of something less than the full purchase price of any mobile home so sold, with the balance to be held in reserve for six months, after which only a 2% contingency fund was retained. At Southland’s request, the total reserve later was limited to $20,000 in return for a personal guarantee from Southland’s president and other security.

Southland subsequently instituted in the Court of Common Pleas for Sumter County, S. C., this breach-of-contract action against both Mellon and Associates. The latter answered and filed a cross-complaint against Mellon. Mellon, by special appearance as allowed by state law, challenged the state court’s jurisdiction over it on the grounds that it was “located” in Allegheny County, Pa., and that, under Rev. Stat. § 5198, 12 U. S. C. § 94, a state-court suit against it could be brought only in Allegheny County. The court, however, ruled that it had jurisdiction over Mellon. It concluded that branch banking for the benefit of Mellon was taking place at Associates’ office; that South Carolina’s long-arm statute, S. C. Code § 36-2-803 (1977), applied; and that Mellon by its conduct had waived any immunity from suit in South Carolina it may have possessed.

Mellon appealed to the Supreme Court of South Carolina. In an opinion concerning Associates, 270 S. C. 527, 244 S. E. 2d 212 (1978), that court, without considering waiver, affirmed.

The proliferation, of branch banking has produced problems of state-court venue with respect to national banks not envisioned when § 94’s predecessor statutes were enacted more than a century ago. Just last Term we considered the application of § 94 to a bank’s conduct of banking business at an authorized branch within the State of its “location,” and held that venue need not be restricted to the county where the bank’s charter had been issued. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Bougas, 434 U. S. 35 (1977). And the Court recently held that § 94 was mandatory, not permissive, in its operation and, absent waiver, that a national bank with principal place of business in New York and with no office or agent in Utah, and not regularly conducting business in that State, could not be sued in a Utah state court for breach of contract. National Bank v. Associates of Obstetrics, 425 U. S. 460 (1976). See also Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Langdeau, 371 U. S. 555 (1963), and Michigan Nat. Bank v. Robertson, 372 U. S. 591 (1963). The latter case on its facts is not dissimilar to the present one, for it concerned notes and lien instruments delivered to a local dealer upon purchases of house trailers in Nebraska, followed by the dealer’s negotiating the notes and instruments to a national bank in Michigan. The Court held that, absent waiver, the bank could not be sued in Nebraska. See Bank of America v. Whitney Bank, 261 U. S. 171 (1923), and First Nat. Bank v. Dickinson, 396 U. S. 122 (1969).

Whether, as the South Carolina courts held, Associates was Mellon’s agent in South Carolina and, as a consequence, Mellon was engaged in branch banking in that State to an extent sufficient to sustain venue there under § 94 is, for this Court at least, a new issue. I think that issue is sufficiently important for national banks generally, and for those doing business with national banks or in competition with them, that it receive plenary consideration here. The South Carolina courts, of course, may be correct in their rulings, but I am uncertain enough about their result in the light of this Court’s cases cited above that I would grant certiorari. I therefore dissent from the Court’s refusal to take this case.

       “Suits, actions and proceedings against any association under this chapter may be had in any district or Territorial court of the United States held within the district in which such association may be established, or in any State, county, or municipal court in the county or city in which said association is located having jurisdiction in similar cases.”

       A supporting affidavit from an officer of Mellon recited that Mellon maintained no office in South Carolina; that there were no employees or agents of Mellon, or of a subsidiary or affiliate, in that State; that Mellon purchased commercial paper from financial institutions throughout the country; and that Associates was one of those institutions.

       In a separate opinion concerning Southland, 270 S. C. 525, 244 S. E. 2d 211 (1978), the court ruled that, although there was timely notice of intention to appeal, service upon Southland of the “proposed case and exceptions” was untimely under S. C. Code § 18-9-70 (1976) and Circuit Court Rule 49, and it therefore “was the duty of the circuit judge to dismiss the appeal.” The plausible argument that this untimeliness feature provides an adequate state ground for the court’s decision is sufficient to convince me that the case with respect to respondent South-land is nonreviewable. See R. Stem & E. Gressman, Supreme Court Practice §3.31 (5th ed. 1978). No claim of untimeliness, however, is raised with respect to Associates.


text:
    No. 78-247.
    Manatee Cablevision Corp. v. Florida Power & Light Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 78-5143.
    Seidenberg v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 78-5159.
    No. 78-5240.
    Moore v. Georgia. Hughes v. Texas.
   Sup. Ct. Ga.; and

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 78-5159, 240 Ga. 807, 243 S. E. 2d 1; No. 78-5240, 562 S. W. 2d 857.

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.


text:
    No. 77-555.
    Buck v. Board of Education of the City of New York et al.,
   438 U. S. 904. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 77-6569.
    Gonzalez v. United States et al.,
   436 U. S. 960. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    October 13, 1978
    No. A-322.
    Coberly et al. v. McCartney et al.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Application for stay, presented to Mr. Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-338.
    Espinoza v. United States.
   Application for stay of proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, presented to The Chiee Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    October 16, 1978
    No. 77-6835.
    Wayland v. Town of Ipswich.
   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, motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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. 77-6868.
    Runyan v. California.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Cal. dismissed for want of final judgment.


text:
    No. 78-265.
    Willman v. Minnesota.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-278.
    Torres, Conservator v. Illinois.
   Appeal from App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5255.
    Kelley v. Vermont.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Vt. 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. 78-294.
    Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Cal. dismissed for want of properly presented federal question.


text:
    No. A-315 (77-1844).
    City of Mobile, Alabama, et al. v. Bolden et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 815.] Application of appellees to vacate order issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, on October 3, 1978, presented to Mr. Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-129.
    In re Disbarment of Fitzpatrick.
    [For earlier order herein, see 434 U. S. 980.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-132.
    In re Disbarment of Esser.
    [For earlier order herein, see 435 U. S. 949.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-134.
    In re Disbarment of Beitling.
    [For earlier order herein, see 435 U. S. 993.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-136.
    In re Disbarment of Bremers.
   It is ordered that Ralph R. Bremers, of Omaha, Neb., 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-137.
    In re Disbarment of Gilbert.
   It is ordered that Ira Stuart Gilbert, of Chicago, Ill., 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-138.
    In re Disbarment of Mueller.
   It is ordered that Paul C. Mueller, of Plantation, Fla., 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-139.
    In re Disbarment of Wandel.
   It is ordered that John Joseph Wandel, of Los Angeles, Cal., 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-140.
    In re Disbarment of Ray.
   It is ordered that Samuel B. Ray, Jr., of Barnwell, S. C., 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-141.
    In re Disbarment of Gasque.
   It is ordered that J. Ralph Gasque, of Marion, S. C., 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-142.
    In re Disbarment of Foster.
   It is ordered that Marvin F. Foster, Jr., of San Antonio, Tex., 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. 73,
    Orig.
    California v. Nevada.
    [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 438 U. S. 913.]
   State of Nevada’s answer to amended complaint and its counterclaim and State of California’s reply to the counterclaim are referred to the Special Master.


text:
    No. 76-808.
    Ambach, Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, et al. v. Norwick et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. E). N. Y. [Probable jurisdiction noted sub nom. Nyquist v. Norwick, 436 IT. S. 902.] Motion of Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 77-648.
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Pennzoil Producing Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certio-rari granted, 436 U. S. 955.] Motion of respondents for divided argument granted.

Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Powell 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 petitioner for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 77-1119.
    Orr v. Orr.
   Ct. Civ. App. Ala. '[Probable jurisdiction noted, 436 U. S. 924.] Motion of American Civil Liberties Union for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 77-1254.
    Vance, Secretary of State, et al. v. Bradley et al.
   D. C. D. C. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 436 U. S. 903.] Motion of Claude Pepper et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 77-1327.
    Lake Country Estates, Inc., et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 436 U. S. 943.] Motion of respondents for divided argument granted. Alternative request for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 77-1388.
    Massachusetts v. White.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. [Certiorari granted, 436 U. S. 925.] Motion of Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 77-1378.
    Japan Line, Ltd., et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. [Probable jurisdiction postponed, 436 U. S. 956.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae granted and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Appellees also allotted an additional 15 minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 77-1413.
    Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 436 U. S. 943.] Motions of Licensing Executives Society (U. S. A.), Inc., Patent, Trademark and Copyright Section of the State Bar of Texas, and American Patent Law Assn, for leave to file briefs as amici curiae, granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae granted and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondent also allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


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 American Insurance Assn, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing appendix granted.


text:
    No. 77-5992.
    Addington v. Texas.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 435 U. S. 967.] Motion of American Psychiatric Assn, for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 78-5351.
    No. 78-5368.
    Green v. Ralston, U. S. Magistrate, et al.; and Vick v. United States.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 78-5407.
    Green v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 77-6673.
    Brown v. Texas.
   Appeal from County Ct. at Law No. 2, El Paso County. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted and case set for oral argument together with No. 77-1680, Michigan v. DeFillippo [certiorari granted, ante, p. 816].


text:
    No. 77-983.
    Washington et al. v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn. et al.; and Washington et al. v. Puget Sound Gillnetters Assn. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument with Washington v. United States, No. 78-119, and Puget Sound Gillnetters Assn. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. 78-139, immediately infra. Reported below: 88 Wash. 2d 677, 565 P. 2d 1151 (first case); 89 Wash. 2d 276, 571 P. 2d 1373 (second case).


text:
    No. 78-119.
    No. 78-139.
    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).
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted. Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Cases set for oral argument with Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn, and Washington v. Puget Sound Gillnetters Assn., No 77-983, immediately supra. Reported below: No. 78-119, 573 F. 2d 1118 and 1123; No. 78-139, 573 F. 2d 1123.


text:
    No. 77-1649.
    Early v. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1733.
    Cullum Electric & Mechanical, Inc. v. Mechanical Contractors Association of South Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1788.
    Goldstein v. Collin et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1842.
    No. 78-165.
    Hagan et al. v. Downs; and Downs v. Sawtelle et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 574 F. 2d 1.


text:
    No. 77-6876.
    Hazel v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6977.
    McKinney v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-83.
    No. 78-84.
    Timken Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.; and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 572 F. 2d 1150.


text:
    No. 78-100.
    Fitzgibbon v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-110.
    Moody v. Alabama ex rel. Payne, Commissioner of Insurance, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-121.
    Curtis et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-125.
    Roberts v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-134.
    Sexton v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-154.
    Electri-Flex Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-163.
    L. D. McFarland Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-189.
    Council for Employment and Economic Energy Use v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-191.
    Fassnacht v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-273.
    Derbofen et al. v. T. L. James & Co., Inc.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-280.
    Swimley v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-291.
    Lindley, Tax Commissioner of Ohio v. American Modulars Corp.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-298.
    Allen v. Atlantic National Bank et al.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-299.
    Fontana Aviation, Inc. v. Baldinelli et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-300.
    General Council on Finance and Administration of the United Methodist Church v. Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Barr et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   Super. Ct. Cal., County of San Diego. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-301.
    Rosenthal et al. v. Bradford Trust Co.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-304.
    Alarshi v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-312.
    Skidmore v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-313.
    Booras et al. v. Waukegan Port District.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-338.
    Dooley v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-345.
    Moats et al. v. Landrum, Special Administratrix.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-350.
    Union Oil Company of California v. Canadian American Oil Co. et al.
   G. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-416.
    Grider v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-434.
    Hansen v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5010.
    Gallaway v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Wayne County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5021.
    Goldsmith v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5065.
    Hurt v. Lorton Complex et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5097.
    Janko et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5103.
    Gilbert v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5112.
    Cerase v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5129.
    Norris v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-5160.
    Schroeder v. Killoran.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5163.
    Spears v. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5172.
    Arroyo-Angulo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5175.
    Barker v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5201.
    Epperson v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5237.
    Wilson v. Jago, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5241.
    Bonner et al. v. Wyrick, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5243.
    Woodsum v. City of New Orleans et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5249.
    Gates v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5256.
    Fournier v. LeFevre, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5265.
    Carter v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5278.
    Boyd v. Mabry, Correction Commissioner, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5282.
    Young v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5291.
    McBreen v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5299.
    Lipscomb v. Kalosis et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5304.
    Ledesma v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5310.
    Magouirk v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5323.
    Cruz-Ojeda v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5334.
    Whetzel v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5337.
    Snead v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5338.
    Capps et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5345.
    McMiller v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5347.
    Lipscomb v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5352.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5363.
    Juarez et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5364.
    Carson v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5366.
    Pulido-Santoyo v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5411.
    Long v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1681.
    LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent v. Suggs.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1865.
    Ward, Correctional Commissioner, et al. v. Bulger.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-287.
    New York v. Blanks.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1687.
    No. 78-5007.
    Dost v. United States; and Kilfoyle v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant the petitions and reverse the convictions.

Reported below: 575 F. 2d 1303.


text:
    No. 77-1736.
    Smith, President of the Village of Skokie, Illinois, et al. v. Collin et al.
   G. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun,

with whom Mr. Justice White joins,

dissenting.

It is a matter of regret for me that the Court denies certiorari in this case, for this is litigation that rests upon critical, disturbing, and emotional facts, and the issues cut down to the very heart of the First Amendment.

The village of Skokie, Ill., a suburb of Chicago, in 1974 had a population of approximately 70,000 persons. A majority were Jewish; of the Jewish population a substantial number were survivors of World War II persecution. In March 1977, respondents Collin and the National Socialist Party of America, which Collin described as a “Nazi organization,” publicly announced plans to hold an assembly in front of the Skokie Village Hall. On May 2, the village enacted three ordinances. The first established a permit system for parades and public assemblies and required applicants to post public liability and property damage insurance. The second prohibited the dissemination of material that incited racial or religious hatred with intent so to incite. The third prohibited public demonstrations by members of political parties while wearing military-style uniforms.

On June 22, respondent Collin applied for a permit under the first ordinance. His application stated that a public assembly would take place on July 4, would consist of persons demonstrating in front of the Village Hall, would last about a half hour, and would not disrupt traffic. It also stated that the participants would wear uniforms with swastikas and would carry placards proclaiming free speech for white persons, but would not distribute handbills or literature. The permit was denied.

Skokie's Village Hall stood on a street that was zoned commercial. There were residential areas, however, adjoining to the North, South, and West. The front of the Village Hall was visible from dwellings in those areas.

Upon the rejection of the permit application, respondents filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the president of the village of Skokie, its manager, its corporation counsel, and the village itself. Respondents asked that the ordinances be declared void and their enforcement enjoined. The District Court, after receiving evidence, ruled that the ordinances were unconstitutional on their face, and granted the requested declaratory and injunctive relief. It filed a comprehensive opinion. 447 F. Supp. 676 (1978). The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with one judge dissenting in part, affirmed. 578 F. 2d 1197 (1978).

A permit then was issued to respondents for a demonstration on the afternoon of June 25, 1978, in front of the Village Hall. Respondents, however, shifted their assembly from Skokie to Chicago where activities took place on June 24 and July 9.

Other aspects of the controversy already have reached this Court. In April 1977, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., entered an injunction against respondents prohibiting them, within the village, from parading in the National Socialist uniform, displaying the swastika, or displaying materials that incite or promote hatred against persons of the Jewish or any other faith. The Illinois Appellate Court denied an application for stay pending appeal. The Supreme Court of Illinois, in turn, denied a stay and also denied leave for an expedited appeal. Relief was sought here. This Court, per curiam but by a divided vote, reversed the denial of a stay and remanded the case for further proceedings. National Socialist Party v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977).

On remand, the Illinois Appellate Court reviewed and modified the injunction the Circuit Court had entered and this time upheld only that portion thereof that prevented the display of swastikas “in the course of a demonstration, march, or parade.” Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party, 51 Ill. App. 3d 279, 295, 366 N. E. 2d 347, 359 (1977). The Supreme Court of Illinois denied an application for stay pending expedited review. Mr. Justice Stevens, as Circuit Justice, denied a stay of the injunction as so modified. 434 U. S. 1327 (1977). The Illinois Supreme Court ultimately reversed the remaining injunctive feature, “albeit reluctantly,” and with one justice dissenting. 69 Ill. 2d 605, 619, 373 N. E. 2d 21, 26 (1978).

Thereafter, the village and its codefendants in the present federal litigation filed an application to stay the Seventh Circuit’s mandate or, in the alternative, to stay enforcement of the injunction entered by the District Court. This Court, with two Justices dissenting, denied the application. 436 U. S. 953 (1978).

These facts and this chronology demonstrate, I believe, the pervading sensitivity of the litigation. On the one hand, we have precious First Amendment rights vigorously asserted and an obvious concern that, if those asserted rights are not recognized, the precedent of a “hard” case might offer a justification for repression in the future. On the other hand, we are presented with evidence of a potentially explosive and dangerous situation, enflamed by unforgettable recollections of traumatic experiences in the second world conflict. Finally, Judge Sprecher of the Seventh Circuit observed that “each court dealing with these precise problems (the Illinois Supreme Court, the District Court and this Court) feels the need to apologize for its result.” 578 F. 2d, at 1211.

Furthermore, in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250 (1952), this Court faced up to an Illinois statute that made it a crime to exhibit in any public place a publication that portrayed “depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens, of any race, color, creed or religion,” thereby exposing such citizens “to contempt, derision, or obloquy.” The Court, by a divided vote, held that, as construed and applied, the statute did not violate the liberty of speech guaranteed as against the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I stated in dissent when the application for stay in the present litigation was denied, 436 U. S., at 953, that I feel the Seventh Circuit’s decision is in some tension with Beauharnais. That case has not been overruled or formally limited in any way.

I therefore would grant certiorari in order to resolve any possible conflict that may exist between the ruling of the Seventh Circuit here and Beauharnais. I also feel that the present case affords the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in the context of the facts that this record appears to present, there is no limit whatsoever to the exercise of free speech. There indeed may be no such limit, but when citizens assert, not casually but with deep conviction, that the proposed demonstration is scheduled at a place and in a manner that is taunting and overwhelmingly offensive to the citizens of that place, that assertion, uncomfortable though it may be for judges, deserves to be examined. It just might fall into the same category as one’s “right” to cry “fire” in a crowded theater, for “the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.” Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 52 (1919).


text:
    No. 78-289.
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. First Empire Bank-New York et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 77-7009.
    Hoy v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

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 sentence in this case.


text:
    No. 78-5213.
    Rodriguez v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    October 20, 1978
    No. 78-5442.
    Proffitt v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-rari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 60.


text:
    October 24, 1978
    No. 78-5228.
    Calzada v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 60.


text:
    October 30, 1978
    No. 78-64.
    New York v. United States.
   Affirmed on appeal from C. A. 2d Cir.

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


text:
    No. 78-55.
    Broadway Books, Inc. v. Virginia et al.
   Appeal from Cir. Ct., City of Richmond, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Stewart would dismiss for want of a properly presented federal question. Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall would reverse the judgment.


text:
    No. 78-259.
    Boston Edison Co. v. Department of Public Utilities of Massachusetts et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5342.
    Jenkins v. Evening Star Newspaper Co. et al.
   Appeal from C. A. D. C. 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. 78-5380.
    Hemmerle et ux. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of DeSoto County.
   Appeal from Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-293.
    Avery Federal Savings & Loan Assn. et al. v. Meyers et al., Commissioners, Sinking Fund of the City of Louisville.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ky. dismissed for want of final judgment. (See 28 U. S. C. § 1257.)


text:
    No. 78-372.
    Moskowitz et al. v. Hynes, Deputy Attorney General of New York.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 78-359.
    Hord et al. v. Askew, Governor of Florida, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 78-376.
    Pabst v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Vt. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 78-377.
    Scudder v. Florida Power Corp. et al.
   Appeal from Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 78-386.
    City of Rochester et al. v. Waldert.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 78-389.
    Kaye et al. v. Whalen, Commissioner of Health of New York, et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 78-40.
    Western Oil & Gas Assn. et al. v. Alaska et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted. Part II-C of decision below is vacated and case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for dismissal of paragraph 37 (j) of the complaint.


text:
    No. 78-327.
    California v. Jesse W., a Minor.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Swisher v. Brady, 438 U. S. 204 (1978).


text:
    No. A-285.
    Ruth v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Application for bail, presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-305.
    International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Application for stay, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-354 (78-657).
    Kimble et al. v. Swackhamer, Secretary of State of Nevada, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Application for injunction, presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 77-1248.
    Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 435 U. S. 994.] Motion of Socialist Workers Party for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 77-1258.
    No. 77-1265.
    Minnesota v. First of Omaha Service Corp. et al.; and Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. [Certiorari granted, 436 U. S. 916.] Motion of petitioners for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 77-1493.
    Gladstone, Realtors et al. v. Village of Bellwood et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 436 U. S. 956.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae granted and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Petitioners also allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 77-1547.
    Douglas Oil Company of California et al. v. Petrol Stops Northwest et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certio-rari granted, 437 U. S. 902.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted.


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 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., for additional time for oral argument granted and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Petitioners also allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 77-6217.
    Stacy v. Florida,
   436 U. S. 924. Appellee is invited to file a response to petition for rehearing within 30 days.


text:
    No. 77-6431.
    Caban v. Mohammed et ux.
   Ct. App. N. Y. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 436 U. S. 903.] Order heretofore entered on October 10, 1978 [ante, p. 891], is vacated and the amicus curiae brief of the Legal Aid Society of New York City is ordered filed.


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 respondents for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Brian K. Ridenour, Esquire, of Lincoln, Neb., be appointed to serve as counsel in this case.


text:
    No. 78-428.
    Gaetano et al. v. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Silbert, United States Attorney, Real Party in Interest).
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 78-5184.
    Sellars v. Procunier, Men’s Colony Superintendent, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 78-6.
    Moore et al. v. Sims et ux.
   D. C. S. D. Tex. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 78-329.
    No. 78-330.
    Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al. v. Baird et al.; and Hunerwadel v. Baird et al.
   Appeals from D. C. Mass. Probable jurisdiction noted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 450 F. Supp. 997.


text:
    No. 78-357.
    Williams et al. v. Brown et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 5th Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted and case set for oral argument with No. 77-1844, City of Mobile v. Bolden [probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 815].


text:
    No. 78-58.
    Brown v. Felsen.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari granted.


text:
    No. 78-90.
    Burch et al. v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 78-275.
    Oscar Mayer & Co. et al. v. Evans.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 78-334.
    Fare, Acting Chief Probation Officer v. Michael C.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 78-5072.
    Davis v. Passman.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and cer-tiorari granted.


text:
    No. 77-1735.
    Thomas v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1767.
    Riss International Corp. v. Baker et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1818.
    Ramapuram v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1832.
    Skinner v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1846.
    Ranquist v. Director, Department of Registration and Education of Illinois, et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1867.
    Cranford v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6798.
    Evans v. Benson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6879.
    Gentry v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6889.
    Oaxaca v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6905.
    Mitchell v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6952.
    Washington v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6989.
    No. 78-5023.
    Wilson v. Ohio; and Wilson v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 55 Ohio App. 2d 64, 379 N. E. 2d 273.


text:
    No. 78-12.
    Coniglio v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-96.
    Lodge 1858, American Federation of Government Employees, et al. v. Frosch, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-107.
    Whitney v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-114.
    Tsoumas, Director, Department of Financial Institutions of Illinois v. Glen Ellyn Savings & Loan Assn. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-150.
    Gonzales et al. v. Fairfax-Brewster School, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-158.
    Besbris v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-172.
    Jin Won Park et al. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-176.
    Hall v. DiMarzo et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-187.
    David et vir v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-193.
    Capanegro v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-203.
    Snapp v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-205.
    Gift Wrappings & Tyings Assn. v. United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-211.
    International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. Newport Tankers Corp. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-215.
    Steele v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-218.
    Carbon Fuel Co. v. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-230.
    Kalav v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-232.
    No. 78-5218.
    Bufalino v. United States; and Sparber v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 576 F. 2d 446.


text:
    No. 78-245.
    Lehigh Lumber Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-272.
    Scruggs v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-274.
    Wilcher v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-307.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-319.
    No. 78-320.
    Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., et al. v. City of Chicago; and Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp. v. City of Chicago.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 71 Ill. 2d 333, 375 N. E. 2d 1285.


text:
    No. 78-337.
    Shapiro v. Township of East Windsor et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-346.
    Oxley et al. v. Little Switzerland Brewing Co. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-348.
    Burnett v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-355.
    Saudco Limited et al. v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-358.
    Farrell Lines, Inc. v. Canizzo et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-374.
    Still, Trustee in Bankruptcy, et al. v. Chattanooga Memorial Park.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-375.
    Haddad v. Crosby Corp. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-380.
    Tuzman v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-383.
    Fennell v. Butler et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-392.
    Tracy et al. v. Rutcosky et ux.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-400.
    Hahn-DiGuiseppe v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-404.
    First Pennsylvania Bank N. A. v. Monsen et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-405.
    Nogales Service Center v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-415.
    Magnuson v. Burlington Northern, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-426.
    Garzia et ux. v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-427.
    Gaetano et al. v. Silbert, United States Attorney.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-452.
    Woodward State Hospital-School et al. v. Auxier.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-473.
    Standard v. Cowan, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-508.
    Izsak v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-543.
    Frazier v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-550.
    Frezzell v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C.


text:
    No. 78-5004.
    No. 78-5025.
    Mangan v. United States; and Mangan v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 575 F. 2d 32.


text:
    No. 78-5035.
    Johnson v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Greene County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5058.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5062.
    No. 78-5079.
    No. 78-5080.
    Pippen v. United States; Ricks v. United States; and Nichols v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 578 F. 2d 1382.


text:
    No. 78-5070.
    Ramirez-Venegas v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5078.
    Johnston v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5099.
    Dye v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5100.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-5104.
    Two Bulls v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5110.
    Crisafi v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5111.
    Poole v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5114.
    Clark v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5115.
    Garrison v. Tennessee.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5123.
    West v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5126.
    Chrisco v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5150.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5162.
    Hooker v. Klein, U. S. Marshal.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5182.
    Munford v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5188.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5210.
    Hargett v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5226.
    Jacobson v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5230.
    McCoy v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5233.
    Abouzahr v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5235.
    Langston v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5248.
    Parrilla v. Government of the Virgin Islands.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5253.
    Graser v. Goldberg et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5264.
    Colyer v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5272.
    Taylor v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5285.
    Soltero v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5297.
    Wolfrath v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5298.
    Maynor v. Suttons.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5303.
    Campellone v. Adult Probation Department of Pima County, Arizona.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5314.
    Dunagan v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5316.
    Ray v. Proxmire et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5318.
    Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5322.
    Lingham v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5332.
    Valdivia v. California.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Los Angeles. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5339.
    Breest v. Helgemoe, Warden.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5340.
    Rosenberg v. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5344.
    Dale v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5346.
    Roman v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5348.
    Starkey v. Vermillion et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5349.
    Foster v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5354.
    Edwards v. Superior Court of Polk County, Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5361.
    Johnson v. Howard, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5362.
    Campbell v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5367.
    Beasley v. John Buist Chester Hospital School of Vocational Nursing.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5376.
    Barber v. Kimbrell’s, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5378.
    Poston et al. v. High Point Bank & Trust Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5379.
    Lippitt v. Board of Education, South Euclid-Lyndhurst City School District.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5385.
    Lam Lek Chong v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5390.
    Watson v. Jago, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5397.
    Emery v. United States Department of Justice.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5399.
    Lord v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5404.
    Balitian v. Kuta et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5406.
    Rich, aka Lunceford v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5423.
    Bustillo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5438.
    Blankenship v. Overberg, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5444.
    Jordan v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5448.
    Restrepo-Granda v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5450.
    Chimprapiboon v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5455.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5456.
    Mireles v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5466.
    Wright v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5469.
    Stewart et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5472.
    Barbarin v. All U. S. Judges of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5478.
    Winters v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5487.
    Sierra-Hernandez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5496.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5511.
    Campbell v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


author: Mr. Justice Stewart,

text:
    No. 77-1545.
    No. 77-1557.
    McKethan v. United States; and Garner v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 574 F. 2d 1141.

Mr. Justice Stewart,

with whom Mr. Justice Marshall joins,

dissenting.

These petitioners contend that the admission into evidence at their trial of the grand jury testimony of an unavailable witness violated both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Sixth Amendment. The Courts of Appeals have differed as to the admissibility of such evidence in similar cases. I would grant certiorari to resolve these questions.

The petitioners were convicted of conspiracy and substantive offenses stemming from their alleged importation of heroin. An alleged accomplice named Robinson was allowed to plead guilty to two lesser offenses in return for his testimony against the petitioners before a grand jury. The prosecution intended to rely heavily on Robinson’s testimony at the petitioners’ trial. Before the trial, however, Robinson stated that he would not testify. Although the court granted Robinson use immunity, he persisted in his refusal to testify. Over the petitioners’ objections, the trial judge then admitted the transcript of Robinson’s grand jury testimony under Fed. Rule Evid. 804 (b) (5). After this transcript was read to the trial jury, Robinson did take the witness stand. He stated that he knew the petitioners and that his grand jury testimony had been false. The Court of Appeals characterized his comments as

“giv[ing] one the general impression not that the grand jury testimony was false but that, whatever pressures were brought upon him, [he] was unwilling to testify, and particularly unwilling to say anything which would incriminate either of these defendants.” 574 F. 2d 1141, 1143 (1978).

The grand jury testimony was the main support for the jury’s guilty verdict against one of the petitioners, and an important part of the prosecution’s case against the other.

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the petitioners’ convictions, concluding that neither the Federal Rules of Evidence nor the Confrontation Clause barred the admission of Robinson’s grand jury testimony because it possessed “strong indicators of reliability.” Id., at 1144. The Court of Appeals found that Robinson’s story was corroborated by testimony at the trial from another member of the alleged conspiracy and by documentary evidence of the petitioners’ overseas travels.

Although they are not coextensive, the Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rule “stem from the same roots.” Dutton v. Evans, 400 U. S. 74, 86 (1970). Considered under either the Sixth Amendment or the Federal Rules of Evidence, I have grave doubts about the admissibility of Robinson’s grand jury testimony.

That the evidence was first given before a grand jury adds little to its reliability. In grand jury proceedings, the ordinary rules of evidence do not apply. Leading questions and multiple hearsay are permitted and common. Grand jury investigations are not adversary proceedings. No one is present to cross-examine the witnesses, to give the defendant’s version of the story, or to expose weaknesses in the witnesses’ testimony.

The only factor that generally makes grand jury testimony more trustworthy than other out-of-court statements is the fact that it is given under oath. The witnesses speak under the threat of prosecution for material false statements. But that usual indication of trustworthiness was missing here. Robinson recanted bis grand jury testimony at the trial. By disclaiming under oath his earlier sworn statements, he put himself in a position where one of his two sworn statements had to be false. Without further proof, Robinson would appear to have violated federal law, and, after the petitioners’ trial, the Government did, indeed, indict Robinson for violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1623. The charges were dismissed only after he pleaded guilty to a contempt citation.

The Courts of Appeals are struggling with the problem of the admissibility of hearsay evidence not falling within one of the traditional exceptions to inadmissibility. The Fourth Circuit has taken a relatively liberal view of the admissibility of grand jury testimony, both in this case and in United States v. West, 574 F. 2d 1131 (1978). In a similar situation the Fifth Circuit concluded that grand jury testimony was inadmissible. United States v. Gonzalez, 559 F. 2d 1271 (1977). Before the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Second Circuit held that the use of grand jury testimony in a situation like this violated both the hearsay rule and the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Fiore, 443 F. 2d 112 (1971). The Eighth Circuit, in a case in which the grand jury witness had not recanted his testimony, allowed the grand jury testimony to be admitted. United States v. Carlson, 547 F. 2d 1346 (1976).

While those cases may be factually distinguishable, the conflict in interpretation among the Circuits remains. In some Circuits Rule 804 (b) (5) is being used to admit grand jury testimony when the witness is unavailable at trial; in others, it is not. Here, the witness recanted his grand jury testimony under oath at the trial, yet it was the crucial evidence in these petitioners’ convictions.

I would grant certiorari to determine the limits placed upon the admissibility of this kind of evidence by either the Federal Rules of Evidence or the Constitution.

       Garner also contends that the prosecution proved that he participated in no more than one conspiracy. Thus, he argues that he should not have received consecutive sentences after conviction on the two eon-spiraey counts. I believe the Court of Appeals properly decided this issue, and would limit the grant of certiorari to the evidentiary question.

       Rule 804 (b)(5) provides:
      “(b) Hearsay exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: . . .
      “(5) Other exceptions. A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, his intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.”

       It seems to me open to serious doubt whether Rule 804 (b) (5) was intended to provide case-by-case hearsay exceptions, rather than only to permit expansion of the hearsay exceptions by categories.


text:
    No. 78-78.
    Singleton et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun,

with whom Mr. Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice Powell join,

dissenting.

The issue in this federal income tax case is whether a cash distribution that petitioner husband (hereafter petitioner) received in 1965 with respect to his shares in Capital Southwest Corporation (CSW) was taxable to him as a dividend, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held, or whether that distribution was a return of capital and therefore not taxable, as the Tax Court held. I regard the issue as of sufficient importance in the administration of the income tax laws to justify review here, and I dissent from the Court’s failure to grant certiorari.

CSW was the parent of a group of affiliated corporations. Consolidated returns were filed for CSW and the group for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1964 and 1965. This was advantageous taxwise, .for it enabled income of Capital Wire & Cable Corporation (CW), one of the subsidiaries, to be offset against losses sustained by CSW. CW’s board formally recognized a saving in tax of about $863,000 through the filing of consolidated returns for the two fiscal years. That board then distributed $1 million in March 1965, not solely to CSW, its principal shareholder, but ratably to all its shareholders. As primary shareholder, CSW received $803,750 of that distribution.

The Internal Revenue Service subsequently determined that the consolidated returns for fiscal 1964 and 1965 did not accurately reflect the earnings of the group. Asserted deficiencies were settled in 1972 for approximately $900,000. Of this amount, about $755,000 was allocated to CW.

Petitioner takes the position that CW’s allocable share of the 1965 tax must be accrued to that fiscal year; that CW’s 1965 payment to CSW was thus not a dividend entering into the determination of CSW’s earnings and profits at all, but was a constructive payment of CW’s share of the tax bill; that this left CSW with no earnings and profits for 1965; and that, as a consequence, CSW’s 1965 distribution to petitioner could only be a nontaxable return of capital and could not be a taxable dividend. The Tax Court, in a reviewed decision, with six judges dissenting, accepted this view. 64 T. C. 320 (1975). The Fifth Circuit reversed. 569 F. 2d 863 (1978).

As is not infrequently the situation in tax cases, the parties initially wage a battle of maxims. Petitioner speaks of “substance and realities” and cites, among other cases, Helvering v. Lazarus & Co., 308 U. S. 252, 255 (1939), and Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U. S. 561, 573 (1978). The Commissioner asserts that a taxpayer must accept the tax consequences of his structural choice and cites Commissioner v. National Alfalfa Dehydrating & Milling Co., 417 U. S. 134, 149 (1974). In addition, however, it is clear that CW’s distribution was definitely intended to compensate CSW for the tax saving effected by the beneficial use of CSW’s loss in the consolidated return. On the other hand, that compensatory action was accomplished by a pro rata distribution not only to CSW but to minority shareholders as well.

For me, the answer to this tax question is by no means immediately apparent. Each side advances a forceful argument. The deep division among the judges of the Tax Court is indicative and significant. I cannot regard the issue as one that is too fact-specific or incapable of precedential effect. On the contrary, it features important aspects of tax accounting and tax law. CSW and CW, after all, were accrual-basis taxpayers. Normally, when a deficiency in tax of an accrual-basis taxpayer is ultimately determined, it is to be accrued as of the tax year of the deficiency and it affects earnings and profits accordingly. A consideration opposing this accepted proposition is the fact that the portion of CW’s 1965 distribution paid to minority shareholders obviously qualified and apparently was reported as taxable dividends; it would be at least somewhat anomalous to have the portion paid to CSW constitute, in contrast, a return of capital.

I hope that the Court’s decision to pass this case by is not due to a natural reluctance to take on another complicated tax case that is devoid of glamour and emotion and that would be remindful of the recent struggles, upon argument and reargument, in United States v. Foster Lumber Co., 429 U. S. 32 (1976), and Laing v. United States, 423 U. S. 161 (1976).

Opinion of Mr. Justice Stevens respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari.

What is the significance of this Court’s denial of certiorari? That question is asked again and again; it is a question that is likely to arise whenever a dissenting opinion argues that certiorari should have been granted. Almost 30 years ago Mr. Justice Frankfurter provided us with an answer to that question that should be read again and again.

“This Court now declines to review the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals. The sole significance of such denial of a petition for writ of certiorari need not be elucidated to those versed in the Court’s procedures. It simply means that fewer than four members of the Court deemed it desirable to review a decision of the lower court as a matter 'of sound judicial discretion.’ Rule 38, paragraph 5. A variety of considerations underlie denials of the writ, and as to the same petition different reasons may lead different Justices to the same result. This is especially true of petitions for review on writ of certiorari to a State court. Narrowly technical reasons may lead to denials. Review may be sought too late; the judgment of the lower court may not be final; it may not be the judgment of a State court of last resort; the decision may be supportable as a matter of State law, not subject to review by this Court, even though the State court also passed on issues of federal law. A decision may satisfy all these technical requirements and yet may commend itself for review to fewer than four members of the Court. Pertinent considerations of judicial policy here come into play. A case may raise an important question but the record may be cloudy. It may be desirable to have different aspects of an issue further illumined by the lower courts. Wise adjudication has its own time for ripening.
“Since there are these conflicting and, to the uninformed, even confusing reasons for denying petitions for certiorari, it has been suggested from time to time that the Court indicate its reasons for denial. Practical considerations preclude. In order that the Court may be enabled to discharge its indispensable duties, Congress has placed the control of the Court’s business, in effect, within the Court’s discretion. During the last three terms the Court disposed of 260, 217, 224 cases, respectively, on their merits. For the same three terms the Court denied, respectively, 1,260, 1,105, 1,189 petitions calling for discretionary review. If the Court is to do its work it would not be feasible to give reasons, however brief, for refusing to take these cases. The time that would be required is prohibitive, apart from the fact as already indicated that different reasons not infrequently move different members of the Court in concluding that a particular case at a particular time makes review undesirable. It becomes relevant here to note that failure to record a dissent from a denial of a petition for writ of certiorari in nowise implies that only the member of the Court who notes his dissent thought the petition should be granted.
“Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court’s views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated.” Opinion respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U. S. 912, 917-919.

When those words were written, Mr. Justice Frankfurter and his colleagues were too busy to spend their scarce time writing dissents from denials of certiorari. Such opinions were almost nonexistent. It was then obvious that if there was no need to explain the Court’s action in denying the writ, there was even less reason for individual expressions of opinion about why certiorari should have been granted in particular cases.

Times have changed. Although the workload of the Court has dramatically increased since Mr. Justice Frankfurter’s day, most present Members of the Court frequently file written dissents from certiorari denials. It is appropriate to ask whether the new practice serves any important goals or contributes to the strength of the institution.

One characteristic of all opinions dissenting from the denial of certiorari is manifest. They are totally unnecessary. They are examples of the purest form of dicta, since they have even less legal significance than the orders of the entire Court which, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter reiterated again and again, have no precedential significance at all.

Another attribute of these opinions is that they are potentially misleading. Since the Court provides no explanation of the reasons for denying certiorari, the dissenter's arguments in favor of a grant are not answered and therefore typically appear to be more persuasive than most other opinions. Moreover, since they often omit any reference to valid reasons for denying certiorari, they tend to imply that the Court has been unfaithful to its responsibilities or has implicitly reached a decision on the merits when, in fact, there is no basis for such an inference.

In this case, for example, the dissenting opinion suggests that the Court may have refused to grant certiorari because the case is “devoid of glamour and emotion.” I am puzzled by this suggestion because I have never witnessed any indication that any of my colleagues has ever considered “glamour and emotion” as a relevant consideration in the exercise of his discretion or in his analysis of the law. With respect to the Court’s action in this case, the absence of any conflict among the Circuits is plainly a sufficient reason for denying certiorari. Moreover, in allocating the Court's scarce resources, I consider it entirely appropriate to. disfavor complicated cases which turn largely on unique facts. A series of decisions by the courts of appeals may well provide more meaningful guidance to the bar than an isolated or premature opinion of this Court. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter reminded us, “wise adjudication has its own time for ripening.”

Admittedly these dissenting opinions may have some beneficial effects. Occasionally a written statement of reasons for granting certiorari is more persuasive than the Justice’s oral contribution to the Conference. For that reason the written document sometimes persuades other Justices to change their votes and a petition is granted that would otherwise have been denied. That effect, however, merely justifies the writing and circulating of these memoranda within the Court; it does not explain why a dissent which has not accomplished its primary mission should be published.

It can be argued that publishing these dissents enhances the public’s understanding of the work of the Court. But because they are so seldom answered, these opinions may also give rise to misunderstanding or incorrect impressions about how the Court actually works. Moreover, the selected bits of information which they reveal tend to compromise the otherwise secret deliberations in our Conferences. There are those who believe that these Conferences should be conducted entirely in public or, at the very least, that the votes on all Conference matters should be publicly recorded. The traditional view, which I happen to share, is that confidentiality makes a valuable contribution to the full and frank exchange of views during the decisional process; such confidentiality is especially valuable in the exercise of the kind of discretion that must be employed in processing the thousands of certiorari petitions that are reviewed each year. In my judgment, the importance of preserving the tradition of confidentiality outweighs the minimal educational value of these opinions.

In all events, these are the reasons why I have thus far resisted the temptation to publish opinions dissenting from denials of certiorari.

      The point MR. Justice SteveNS- would make by his separate opinion was answered effectively 25 years ago by Mr. Justice Jackson, concurring in the result, in Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 542-544 (1953).

       There were none in 1945 or 1946, and I have been able to find only one in the 1947 Term. See dissent in Chase National Bank v. Cheston, and companion cases, 332 U. S. 793, 800.

       By way of comparison to the figures cited by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, the Court during the three most recent Terms reviewed and decided 362, 483, and 323 cases respectively. And during each of these Terms, the Court denied certiorari in well over 3,000 cases.


text:
    No. 78-335.
    Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. LaFontaine.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of National Railway Labor Conference for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-347.
    Oreck Corp. v. Whirlpool Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 78-384.
    Parry, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of Orange County, et al. v. George et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5106.
    Cornell v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certio-rari denied.

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


text:
    No. 78-5192.
    Fritz v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall would grant cer-tiorari.


text:
    No. 78-5321.
    No. 78-5335.
    Adams v. Florida. Davis v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Fla.; and

Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 78-5321, 355 So. 2d 1205; No. 78-5335, 241 Ga. 376, 247 S. E. 2d 45.

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.


text:
    No. 78-5327.
    Hostetler v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari and reverse the conviction.


text:
    No. 78-5402.
    Hays v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari and reverse the conviction.


text:
    November 1, 1978
    No. 78-5540.
    Buchanan v. Bordenkircher, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 60.


text:
    November 3, 1978
    No. A-417.
    Rogers et al. v. Lodge et al.
   Application for stay of order of United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, presented to Mr. Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending final disposition of the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.


text:
    No. A-382 (78-710).
    Klein v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Application for stay, presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    November 6, 1978
    No. 78-123.
    Acker v. Board of Trustees of Pass Christian Municipal Separate School District.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Miss, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 78-446.
    Dunham et ux. v. Clackamas County.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ore. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 78-465.
    Napolitano et ux. v. Wyoming State Highway Department et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Wyo. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 78-297.
    Manchester News Co., Inc. v. New Hampshire.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. H. dismissed for want of final judgment. See 28 U. S. C. § 1257.


text:
    No. 78-381.
    Holding v. BVA Credit Corp.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Va. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-397.
    Garfinkle et vir v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (Wells Fargo Bank et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Cal. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

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


text:
    No. 77-6817.
    McElwee v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Crist v. Brets, 437 U. S. 28 (1978).


text:
    No. A-376.
    Pfister v. Anderson Clinic, Inc., et al.
   Application for stay of orders of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, addressed to

Mr. Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-73.
    In re Disbarment of McGovern.
    [For earlier order herein, see 429 U. S. 936.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-102.
    In re Disbarment of Pappas.
    [For earlier order herein, see 430 U. S. 981.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-117.
    In re Disbarment of Eisenberg.
    [For earlier order herein, see 434 U. S. 885.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-131.
    In re Disbarment of Gibson.
    [For earlier order herein, see 435 U. S. 901.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-133.
    In re Disbarment of Chu.
    [For earlier order herein, see 435 U. S. 949.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-143.
    In re Disbarment of Beasley.
   It is ordered that Alton S. Beasley, of Okeechobee, Fla., 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. 77-1410.
    Butner v. United States et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 436 U. S. 955.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 77-1497.
    Arkansas v. Sanders.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. [Cer-tiorari granted, ante, p. 891.] Motion of Bill Clinton, Esquire, to permit Joseph H. Purvis, Esquire, to present oral argument pro hac vice granted.


text:
    No. 77-1553.
    County of Los Angeles et al. v. Davis et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 437 U. S. 903.] Motion of California Organization of Police & Sheriffs, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


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.
   [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 817.] Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing appendix granted.


text:
    No. 78-136.
    Wholesale Materials Co., Inc. v. Magna Corp., dba Mississippi Steel,
   ante, p. 864. Motion of respondent for damages for delay denied.


author: Me. Justice Stevens,

text:
    No. A-355 (78-64.9).
    City of Boston et al. v. Anderson et al.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. ..Motion to vacate stay order heretofore entered by Me. Justice Bebnnan on October 20, 1978, denied.

Me. Justice Stevens,

with whom Me. Justice Stewaet and Me. Justice Rehnquist join,

dissenting.

Because the Court in practical effect has summarily reversed the unanimous holding of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on a question of Massachusetts law, it is appropriate to note my dissent. The highest court of the State held that a Massachusetts “municipality has no authority to appropriate funds for the purpose of taking action to influence the result of a referendum proposed to be submitted to the people at a State election.”

Unless state action has violated some federal law, a federal court has no power to compel a State to spend its money or to grant a political subdivision of the State authority which the State has withheld. Federal questions may, of course, arise when a State regulates the communicative activities of third parties, whether they be individuals or private corporations. Such questions may also arise if a State authorizes expenditures to advance or explain a particular point of view. But in this case we are merely confronted with “a, State's determination to refrain from speech on a given topic or topics and to bar its various subdivisions from expending funds in contravention of that determination.” I consider it frivolous to suggest that the First Amendment, or any other provision of the United States Constitution, empowers this Court to interfere with that determination. I would therefore grant the motion to vacate the stay entered by Mb. Justice Brennan as Circuit Justice on October 20, 1978.

       -Mass.-,-, 380 N. E. 2d 628, 632 (1978).

       “Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the State, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the State as may be entrusted to them. For the purpose of executing' these powers properly and efficiently they usually are given the power to acquire, hold, and manage personal and real property. The number, nature and duration of the-powers conferred upon these corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the State. Neither their charters, nor any law conferring governmental powers, or vesting in them property to be used for governmental purposes, or authorizing them to hold or manage such property, or exempting them from taxation upon it, constitutes a contract with the State within the meaning of the Federal Constitution. The State, therefore, at its pleasure may modify or withdraw all such powers, may take without compensation such property, hold it itself, or vest it in other agencies, expand or contract the territorial area, unite the whole or a part of it with another municipality, repeal the charter and destroy the corporation. All this may be done, conditionally or unconditionally, with or without the consent of the citizens, or even against their' protest. In all these respects the State is supreme, and its legislative body, conforming its action to the state constitution, may do as it will, unrestrained by any provision of the Constitution of the United States. Although the inhabitants and property owners may by such changes suffer inconvenience, and their property may be lessened in value by the burden of increased taxation, or for any other reason, they have no right by contract or otherwise in the unaltered or continued existence of the corporation or its powers, and there is nothing in the Federal Constitution which protects them from these injurious consequences. The power is in the State and those who legislate for the State are alone responsible for any unjust or oppressive exercise of it.” Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161, 178-179.

       — Mass., at-, 380 N. E. 2d, at 637.


text:
    No. 78-5181.
    Kovacs v. Bolt et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 77-1645.
    Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. (TAMA), et al. v. Lewis.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 78-479.
    Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 77-1677.
    Richman v. Shevin, Attorney General of Florida, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1859.
    No. 78-295.
    Helfat v. Securities and Exchange Commission et al.; and Koracorp Industries, Inc., et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 575 F. 2d 692.


text:
    No. 77-1868.
    In re Janavitz et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-6776.
    Ward et ux. v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-7.
    No. 78-34.
    Delph et al. v. United States; and Hawkins et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 571 F. 2d 880.


text:
    No. 78-19.
    Fruehauf Corp. et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-42.
    Choate v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-45.
    George Hantscho Co., Inc. v. Wansor et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-54.
    Keener v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-63.
    Moon v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-89.
    Goeller v. North Dakota.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-117.
    Gray-Taylor, Inc., dba Jimmie Green Chevrolet v. Harris County et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-120.
    Clavey v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-171.
    Fernandez-Guzman v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-198.
    Gutierrez v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-210.
    Walton v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-254.
    No. 78-483.
    Ohio v. Ruppert; and Ruppert v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 54 Ohio St. 2d 263, 375 N. E. 2d 1250.


text:
    No. 78-264.
    Wedelstedt v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-266.
    Syufy Enterprises v. National General Theatres, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-277.
    Doyon, Ltd., et al. v. Bristol Bay Native Corp. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-306.
    United Van Lines, Inc. v. Vonder Linden et ux.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-332.
    83rd Realty Co. v. Jamaica Savings Bank.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-356.
    Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa v. Licklider, Chairman, State Conservation Commission of Iowa, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-420.
    Caesar's Health Club et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., St. Louis Dist. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 78-422.
    Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Kerr-McGee Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-429.
    Haste et ux. v. American Home Products Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-456.
    Statewide Contractors, Inc., et al. v. Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker et al.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-460.
    Lis et al. v. Robert Packer Hospital et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-475.
    Fried et al. v. Carey, State’s Attorney of Cook County.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-499.
    Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan at Jackson v. Berrier.
   G. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-502.
    Flisk et al. v. Kelly, Judge.
   Cir. Ct., Cook County, Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-520.
    Ross v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-559.
    Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (McDowell et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-588.
    Van Wey v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-637.
    Galante v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5026.
    Nelson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5034.
    Ruviwat v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5051.
    Carter v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5061.
    Graham v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Summit County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5077.
    Bell v. North Carolina et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5086.
    Buckingham v. Thompson, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5121.
    Moore v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5134.
    Crowell v. Zahradnick, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5167.
    Canet v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5179.
    Saylor et al. v. Overberg, Correctional Superintendent.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5194.
    Young v. New Mexico.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5227.
    Diaz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5251.
    No. 78-5288.
    McGuire v. United States; and Blackwell v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 578 F. 2d 1379.


text:
    No. 78-5254.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5260.
    Nahavandi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5266.
    Kearns v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5395.
    Robinson v. Richardson, District Attorney of Caddo Parish, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5398.
    Tyler et al. v. Grady, Judge, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5400.
    D’Agostin v. Enomoto, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5405.
    Hawkins v. Crist, Warden, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5413.
    Corpus v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5424.
    Roche v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5428.
    Denny v. Foreman, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5430.
    Jensen v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5432.
    Hall v. Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5434.
    Garza v. McCarthy, Men’s Colony Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5437.
    Poston v. Morgan-Schultheiss, Inc.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5449.
    Conroy v. Bombard, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5480.
    Mancillas et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5493.
    Bohr v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-5502.
    Sanders v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-167.
    No. 78-168.
    No. 78-169.
    American Air Filter Co., Inc., et al. v. Federal Trade Commission et al.; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. et al. v. Federal Trade Commission et al.; and Milliken & Co. v. Federal Trade Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Reported below: 193 U. S. App. D. C. 300, 595 F. 2d 685.


text:
    No. 78-5527.
    McNair v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-190.
    Eli Lilly & Co. v. Staats, Comptroller General, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of Abbott Laboratories for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-237.
    Aqua Media, Ltd., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari and/or motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 78-351.
    Clay et al. v. Hayward et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 78-407.
    Hake et al. v. Helton, Administratrix, et al.
   Ct. App. Mo., Kansas City Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 78-5250.
    No. 78-5311.
    Jones v. Texas. Raulerson v. Florida.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; and

Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-tiorari denied. Reported below: No. 78-5250, 568 S. W. 2d 847; No. 78-5311, 358 So. 2d 826.

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.


text:
    No. 78-5193.
    Knight v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certio-rari.


text:
    No. 78-629.
    Hickey v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Mr. Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 77-1636.
    No. 77-6574.
    No. 77-6683.
    No. 77-6914.
    No. 77-6984.
    No. 78-5045.
    No. 78-5139.
    No. 78-5176.
    Reed v. City of Los Angeles et al., Yanni v. United States, Campbell v. United States, Davis v. Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board of Minnesota et al., Kalec v. Dellinger, Prosecutor of White County, et al., Rooks v. United States, Calhoun et ux. v. Franchise Tax Board of California, Sceifers v. Indiana,
   ante, p. 825;

ante, p. 840;

ante, p. 841;

ante, p. 807;

ante, p. 857;

ante, p. 862;

ante, p. 872; and

ante, p. 873. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 77-1003.
    Napoli et al. v. United States,
   436 U. S. 912. Motion for leave to file petition for hearing denied.