text:
    No. 72-1713.
    Secretary of the Navy v. Avrech.
   Appeal from C. A. D. C. Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 414 U. S. 816.] Counsel for parties directed to file within 21 days supplemental briefs on issues of jurisdiction of the District Court and on exhaustion of remedies. Briefs may be typewritten.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 72-6160.
    Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co.
   Sup. Ct. La. [Certiorari granted, 411 U. S. 981.] Motion of the State of Louisiana for leave to file a brief on the merits after argument granted.


text:
    No. 73-235.
    DeFunis et al. v. Odegaard et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1038.] Motions of National Association of Manufacturers of the United States and Committee on Academic Nondiscrimination and Integrity to file briefs as amici curiae denied.


text:
    No. 73-300.
    No. 73-480.
    Saxbe, Attorney General, et al. v. Bustos et al.; and Cardona et al. v. Saxbe, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1143.] Motion of California Farm Bureau Federation et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae denied.


text:
    No. 73-434.
    No. 73-435.
    No. 73-436.
    Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Bradley et al.; Allen Park Public Schools et al. v. Bradley et al.; and Grosse Pointe Public School System v. Bradley et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1038.] Motion of respondents Board of Education for the School District of the City of Detroit et al. for leave to participate in oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 73-437.
    No. 73-457.
    No. 73-464.
    Mobil Oil Corp. v. Federal Power Commission et al.; Public Service Commission of New York v. Federal Power Commission et al.; and Municipal Distributors Group v. Federal Power Commission et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Cer-tiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1142.] Motion of Shell Oil Co. to recuse Mr. Justice Douglas denied.

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


text:
    No. 73-482.
    Michigan v. Tucker.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1062.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae granted and a total of 15 minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondent allotted an additional 15 minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 73-507.
    Hamling et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1143.] Motion of petitioners for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 73-679.
    Wolfe, Warden, et al. v. McDonnell.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1156.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae granted and a total of 15 minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondent allotted an additional 15 minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 73-1003.
    National Indian Youth Council et al. v. Bruce et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied without prejudice to named individuals to file appropriate affidavits in forma pauperis. See 28 U. S. C. § 1915; Rule 53 of the Rules of this Court; and Pothier v. Rodman, 261 U. S. 307, 309 (1923).


text:
    No. 73-5812.
    Wolf v. Hollowell, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 73-364.
    Amerind v. Mancari et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. Mex. Motion of appellee Mancari for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case and in No. 73-362 [Morton, Secretary of the Interior v. Mancari, probable jurisdiction noted, 414 U. S. 1142] granted. Motion as to all other appellees in this case and in No. 73-362 denied. Probable jurisdiction noted.' Case consolidated with No. 73-362 and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 73-858.
    Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill. Further consideration of question of jurisdiction postponed to hearing of case on the merits.


text:
    No. 73-748.
    American Radio Assn., AFL-CIO, et al. v. Mobile Steamship Assn., Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-1018.
    United States v. Mazurie et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motions of National Tribal Chairmen's Assn, and Shoshone Indian Tribe et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-675.
    Ruth v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-700.
    Biondo et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-722.
    Mostad v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-727.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-730.
    Sabatino v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-734.
    Gomez v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-741.
    Fifth Avenue Peace Parade Committee et al. v. Kelley, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-805.
    Coppola v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-849.
    Tunnell v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-878.
    Pacific Transport Co. et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-934.
    Service Technology Corp., a Subsidiary of LTV Aerospace Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-974.
    Brinegar, Secretary of Transportation v. National Association of Motor Bus Owners et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1040.
    District of Columbia et al. v. Marsh.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1051.
    Brigandi et al. v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1129.
    Harnois v. Harnois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5567.
    Treadwell et al. v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5641.
    Savage v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5672.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5685.
    Jones v. Henderson, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5686.
    Apodaca v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5693.
    Uski v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5695.
    Bull v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5700.
    Kurzyna v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5709.
    Boulware v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5773.
    Crawford v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5778.
    Silverthorn v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6032.
    Whiteaker v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6044.
    Brashier v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6048.
    Moore v. Swenson, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6050.
    Olden v. Phelps et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6051.
    Adams v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6057.
    Olbrot v. Illinois.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6058.
    Page v. Cowan, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6060.
    Soles v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6066.
    Reed v. Nelson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6155.
    Long v. Haire et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6168.
    Urbauer v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1503.
    Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari. Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 73-794.
    National Association of Motor Bus Owners et al. v. Brinegar, Secretary of Transportation.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-737.
    Esposito v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-806.
    National Petroleum Refiners Assn, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari. Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 73-854.
    No. 73-964.
    No. 73-1039.
    Bevan v. Trustees of Penn Central Transportation Co.; Greenough v. Trustees of Penn Central Transportation Co.; and Twenty-one Retired Employees v. Trustees of Penn Central Transportation Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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

Reported below: 484 F. 2d 1300.


text:
    No. 73-1102.
    Transcon Lines v. Xerox Corp.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 73-1043.
    Hollowell, Penitentiary Superintendent v. McNeal.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6061.
    Solomon v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied for want of final judgment. 28 U. S. C. § 1257.


text:
    No. 72-1040.
    No. 72-1195.
    No. 73-573.
    No. 73-618.
    No. 73-5308.
    No. 73-5550.
    No. 73-5712.
    No. 73-5781.
    Communist Party of Indiana et al. v. Whitcomb, Governor of Indiana, et al., American Pipe & Construction Co., et al. v. Utah et al., Vachon v. New Hampshire, Harrison Property Management Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, Schneider v. California, Miller v. United States, Chavez v. McCarthy, Warden, Madden v. Circuit Court for Dodge County et al.,
   414 U. S. 441;

414 U. S. 538;

414 U. S. 478;

414 U. S. 1130;

414 U. S. 1132;

414 U. S. 1159;

414 U. S. 1134; and

414 U. S. 1142. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-1289.
    National Railroad Passenger Corp. et al. v. National Association of Railroad Passengers,
   414 U. S. 453. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    MARCH 4, 1974
    No. 73-298.
    Vela et al. v. Vowell, Commissioner of Public Welfare of Texas, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Tex. Motion of appellants for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted. Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 73-6081.
    Butler v. Wilson, Governor of New York, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y. Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 73-1083.
    Bennett, Administratrix v. Geeler et al.
   Appeal from App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-6116.
    Mas v. Lavine, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York, et al.
   Appeal from App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-1108.
    Panko v. Donovan et al.
   Appeal from Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6023.
    Bias v. Gies et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. W. Va. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Patterson v. War ner, ante, p. 303; and State ex rel. Reece v. Gies, - W. Va.-, 198 S. E. 2d 211 (1973).


text:
    No. A-590 (73-1221).
    Continental Casualty Co. v. Ward.
   Application for stay of execution of judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio and for approval of super-sedeas bond, presented to

Mr. Justice Douglas and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 72-1603.
    Cardwell, Warden v. Lewis.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1062.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in support of petitioner granted and 15 minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondent allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 73-434.
    No. 73-435.
    No. 73-436.
    Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Bradley et al.; Allen Park Public Schools et al. v. Bradley et al.; and Grosse Pointe Public School System v. Bradley et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1038.] Motion of Inter-Eaith Centers for Racial Justice, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Motion of National Suburban League, Ltd., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 73-434 granted.


text:
    No. 73-557.
    Jenkins v. Georgia.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ga. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 414 U. S. 1090.] Motion of Directors Guild of America, Inc., for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 73-604.
    No. 73-5661.
    Cass v. United States; and Adams et al. v. Secretary of the Navy et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1128.] Motion of petitioners in No. 73-5661 for divided argument granted. It is ordered that 15 minutes be allotted to petitioners for oral argument in each of these consolidated cases.


text:
    No. 73-631.
    Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1091.] Motion of Chamber of Commerce of the United States for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 73-679.
    Wolff, Warden, et al. v. McDonnell.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1156.] Motion of the Attorney General of California for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 73-690.
    Air Pollution Variance Board of Colorado v. Western Alfalfa Corp.
   Ct. App. Colo. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1156.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in support of petitioner granted and 15 minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondent allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 73-786.
    Ross et al. v. Moffitt.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1128.] Motion of the State of Virginia for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 73-1016.
    No. 73-1095.
    Lascaris, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of Onondaga County v. Shirley et al.; and Lavine, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York v. Shirley et al.
   Appeals from D. C. N. D. N. Y. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 73-5265.
    Kokoszka v. Belford, Trustee in Bankruptcy.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1091.] Benjamin R. Civiletti, Esquire, of Baltimore, Maryland, a member of the Bar of this Court, is invited to brief and argue this case as amicus curiae in support of judgment below.


text:
    No. 73-5412.
    Dillard et al. v. Industrial Commission of Virginia et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Va. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 414 U. S. 1110.] Motion of appellee Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 73-5872.
    No. 73-5888.
    Caver v. United States; Van Hook v. United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division; and Jones v. Alabama.
    No, 73-6213.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 73-1106.
    Cousins et al. v. Wigoda et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-1265.
    Saxbe, Attorney General, et al. v. Washington Post Co. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certi-orari granted. Time for filing appendix and briefs accelerated so that this case may be argued with consolidated cases No. 73 — 754 [Procunier v. Hillery, probable jurisdiction noted, 414 U. S. 1127] and No. 73-918 [Pell v. Procunier, probable jurisdiction noted, 414 U. S. 1155]. A total of two hours allotted for oral argument for all three cases.


text:
    No. 73-5768.
    Francisco v. Gathright, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-697.
    Gettelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-731.
    Snider et al. v. All State Administrators, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-755.
    Creighton v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-775.
    Nedd v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-782.
    Hibbs v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-930.
    Maritime Communications Service v. Federal Communications Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-948.
    Gill Trailer & Equipment Rentals, Inc. v. S. D’Antoni, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certi-orari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1030.
    No. 73-1036.
    Home Indemnity Co. v. Ruppel, dba Yo-Ro Diesel Service, Inc., et al.; and Ruppel, dba Yo-Ro Diesel Service, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Reported below: 484 F. 2d 296.


text:
    No. 73-1081.
    Long Island College Hospital v. New York State Labor Relations Board et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1094.
    G. D. Searle & Co. v. Steele.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1098.
    Dubuit v. Harwell Enterprises, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1128.
    Dicks, dba Ozark Gardens Restaurant, et al. v. Nape, Mayor of Eureka Springs, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1133.
    Jones v. Smith et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1154.
    Wolf v. Wolf.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certi-orari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5702.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5721.
    Anderson et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5755.
    Sharrow v. Abzug et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5759.
    Boag v. Gunn, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5774.
    Gatton v. Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5813.
    Mitchell v. New Hampshire.
   Sup. Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5826.
    Portillo v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5839.
    Hernandez v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5977.
    Pfeifer v. United States et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6068.
    Watson v. Dreadin.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6072.
    Roots v. Crews, Judge.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6078.
    Curry v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6079.
    Pete v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6083.
    Saunders v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6097.
    Dearing v. California Adult Authority et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6111.
    Stewart v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6113.
    Day, aka Grant v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6118.
    Keil v. Glover, aka Edgar.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6163.
    Clark v. Rodriguez, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-862.
    Limone v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-911.
    Driscoll v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 139, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1019.
    Dennis v. Wood et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5620.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5701.
    Bates v. McCarthy, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1056.
    A & B Transfer, Inc., et al. v. S. S. Kresge Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion to defer consideration and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1097.
    Electronics Corporation of America v. Honeywell, Inc.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 73-5827.
    Diggs v. Palman et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion to strike respondents’ memorandum and other relief denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-276.
    No. 73-5459.
    Landry v. Hemphill, Noyes & Co. et al., Taylor v. Estelle, Corrections Director,
   414 U. S. 1002; and

414 U. S. 1159. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 73-808.
    No. 73-559.
    No. 73-5675.
    Miller v. Brown et al., Heck’s, Inc. v. Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Tarlton v. Texas,
   414 U. S. 1158;

414 U. S. 1069; and

414 U. S. 1150. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    March 7, 1974
    No. 73-980.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    March 8, 1974
    No. 73-6217.
    McDonald v. Tennessee et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    March 18, 1974
    No. 73-729.
    Corporation Commission of Oklahoma et al. v. Federal Power Commission et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. W. D. Okla.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist, with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Powell join,

dissenting.

“There was a young lady from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger.
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside,
And the smile on the face of the tiger.”

When Congress enacted the Natural Gas Act in 1938, 52 Stat. 821, 15 U. S. C. § 717 et seq., the state regulatory agencies were among its strongest supporters. For, without supplanting any of the existing authority of the state agencies, the Act was intended to provide a powerful regulatory partner, the Federal Power Commission, which could regulate activities where the state bodies could not. As the Senate Report on the bill stated:

“The bill takes no authority from State commissions, and is so drawn as to complement and in no manner usurp State regulatory authority, and contains provisions for cooperative action with State regulatory bodies.”

Yet the Court today affirms a holding of the District Court which permits the Federal Power Commission to sue the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and enjoin the enforcement of those state agency orders which the court finds violate either the Natural Gas Act or the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. After this decision, the state regulatory agencies must surely feel a special kinship with the young lady from Niger.

The District Court judgment which is here affirmed arose out of an action brought by appellee Federal Power Commission against appellant Corporation Commission of Oklahoma in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The complaint alleged that various orders which had been issued by the Oklahoma Commission were invalid under the Commerce Clause and also conflicted with the authority of the Federal Power Commission granted by the Natural Gas Act. The three-judge District Court which was convened agreed with the contentions of the Federal Power Commission, and enjoined enforcement of the orders of the Oklahoma Commission. 362 F. Supp. 522.

My disagreement with the Court’s summary affirmance of this judgment stems, not from any disagreement with the substantive holding of the District Court, but with what seems to me the more important holding that the Federal Power Commission has authority to institute an action such as this at all. Despite the total absence of precedent for such litigation by the Federal Power Commission, and language in the Natural Gas Act which, at least on its face, seems to preclude it, the Court chooses to summarily affirm. At the least, I feel the question deserves plenary consideration.

I

The major share of the Natural Gas Act as it presently exists was passed by Congress in 1938 with the recognition that “the business of transporting and selling natural gas for ultimate distribution to the public is affected with a public interest, and that Federal regulation in matters relating to the transportation of natural gas and the sale thereof in interstate and foreign commerce is necessary in the public interest.” Congress recognized at that time that state regulatory agencies, with authority over intrastate sales and transportation of natural gas, were unable to deal effectively with interstate sales and transportation of that resource. The States themselves acknowledged their inadequacy in this area, and earnestly supported the bill as a supplement to the jurisdictions of their own regulatory agencies. The Act specifically stated that it “shall not apply to any other transportation or sale of natural gas or to the local distribution of natural gas or to the facilities used for such distribution or to the production or gathering of natural gas.” There can be no doubt, I think, that the autonomy of the state regulatory agencies and their spheres of influence were to be preserved.

The Act grants to the Federal Power Commission extensive authority to regulate the interstate transportation and sale of natural gas. It makes unlawful the establishment of rates and charges which are not “just and reasonable,” and further grants to the Commission the power to establish just and reasonable rates where natural gas companies have not done so. “Any State, municipality, or State commission” may file a complaint with the Commission relating to “anything done or omitted to be done by any natural-gas company in contravention of the provisions” of the Natural Gas Act. The Commission is then empowered to hold hearings on the complaint, and the parties are given the right of appeal from any resulting order of the Commission to the appropriate Court of Appeals.

The Act does not simply grant the Commission administrative and adjudicative functions, but prosecutorial functions as well. Subsection (a) of 15 U. S. C. § 717s reads as follows:

“Whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person is engaged or about to engage in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of the provisions of this chapter, or of any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, it may in its discretion bring an action in the proper district court of the United States, ... to enjoin such acts or practices and to enforce compliance with this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, and upon a proper showing a permanent or temporary injunction or decree or restraining order shall be granted without bond.” (Emphasis added.)

It is clear from this section that the Commission is granted ample authority to proceed against any person engaging in practices which violate the Natural Gas Act. It would seem equally clear that if the Commission deemed companies subject to its jurisdiction to be engaging in such practices under claim of authority from the Oklahoma Commission those companies could be forced to defend their conduct in District Court under the provisions of § 717s. But it is a long leap from this provision, which finds a counterpart in other regulatory acts, to the conclusion reached by the District Court here: that the State Commission itself was a “person” for purposes of § 717s, and might be named a defendant in the District Court for purposes of enjoining enforcement of its orders claimed to violate provisions of the Natural Gas Act. I find no support in the Act for that result.

II

The term “person” is defined in the Act itself, 15 U. S. C. § 717a, as follows:

“ 'Person' includes an individual or a corporation.”

Since one would not commonly expect a state corporation commission to be subsumed under the term “individual,” it seems reasonable to look at the definition of the word “corporation” to determine whether a state agency is within the class of “persons” which the Federal Power Commission has authority to bring into federal court. But the term “corporation” is defined in 15 U. S. C. § 717a (2) to specifically exclude “municipalities as hereinafter defined.” Turning to subsection 3, which defines “municipality,” one finds that the term means “a city, county, or other political subdivision or agency of a State.” Whatever else this chain of definitions may mean, it must mean that a state agency is not included within the definition of the term “corporation.”

The District Court in this case conceded that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission was neither an individual nor a corporation within the meaning of the Act, but nevertheless concluded that it was a “person” who could be sued by the Federal Power Commission under § 717s. According to the District Court, the verb “includes” as used in the definition of the word “person” is a verb of “enlargement” and not a verb of “limitation.” Therefore, the court reasoned: “Whether the defendant Oklahoma Corporation Commission is a non-individual ‘person’ against which the [Federal Power Commission] may proceed, is to be determined by the ‘legislative environment.’ ”

I do not think the convoluted statutory construction of the District Court withstands analysis. The Federal Power Commission is given statutory authority to sue any “person,” defined in the Act to include an “individual” or a “corporation.” While use of the word “include” would in some circumstances permit suits against “persons” who could not fairly be classified as either “individuals” or “corporations,” the term hardly can be said to cover an agency with corporate characteristics which is nevertheless specifically excluded from the definition of “corporation.” Yet this is exactly the result reached by the District Court here: Though the statute excludes “municipalities as hereinafter defined” from the term “corporation,” and defines them to mean, inter alia, an “agency of a state,” the careful process of exclusion and inclusion pursued by Congress is rendered nugatory by the District Court’s conclusion that the Oklahoma Commission is a “non-individual ‘person.’ ”

The “legislative environment” to which the District Court purported to look in reaching its conclusion not only fails to support the court’s interpretation but points in precisely the opposite direction. As indicated earlier in this opinion, the Act was passed in an atmosphere of cooperation between the existing state regulatory agencies and the newly created federal regulatory agency, and was unanimously endorsed by the state regulatory agencies. There is nothing in this environment, and nothing indicated by the District Court, which suggests that the state agencies, by their approval, were consenting to be sued by the FPC in federal courts.

The cases cited by the District Court for its holding with respect to the “legislative environment” of the Natural Gas Act arose out of statutes taxing sales of intoxicating liquors and prohibiting conspiracies and restraint of trade, respectively. In Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U. S. 360 (1934), the Court held that, under a statute taxing “persons” selling intoxicating liquor, federal tax policy would support a tax on the State acting in a “proprietary” capacity. In Georgia v. Evans, 316 U. S. 159 (1942), the Court held that a State was included in the definition of “person” for purposes of suing for treble damages under § 7 of the Sherman Act. These cases are scarcely authority for the proposition that the term “person” in one congressional enactment necessarily means the same thing in another. Neither the Liquor Taxing Act of 1934, § 10 (e), 48 Stat. 315, nor the Sherman Act, § 8, 26 Stat. 210, 15 U. S. C. § 7, defined “person” to include a term such as “corporation” which was then additionally defined to exclude the entity sought to be brought within the statute’s definition.

My reading of the Natural Gas Act and attendant legislative history affords no basis for the belief that the Federal Power Commission was authorized to bring state commissions into federal court whenever it suspected that state regulatory orders interfered with its own statutory mission. The Federal Power Commission is given full authority to establish rates, to disapprove rates which are considered unreasonable or unjust, and to bring before it alleged violators of the Act. To go further, at least on arguments as tenuous as those offered in support of the result reached by the District Court, and to conclude that Congress intended the Commission to hale state regulatory agencies into federal court whenever it felt their policies were inconsistent with its own, is not only unnecessary to the effectuation of the federal agency’s responsibilities, but seriously undermines established notions of comity between state and federal bodies. While there may be many questions of statutory construction which are resolved by three-judge courts which are of no great import to any large segment of the public, this assuredly is not one of them.

       S. Rep. No. 1162, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 2-3 (1937).

         Id., at 2. This Court has recognized that the Act was not intended to deprive States of their prior authority:
      “The Act, though extending federal regulation, had no purpose or effect to cut down state power. On the contrary, perhaps its primary purpose was to aid in making state regulation effective, by adding the weight of federal regulation to supplement and reinforce it in the gap created by the prior decisions. The Act was drawn with meticulous regard for the continued exercise of state power, not to handicap or dilute it in any way.” Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of Indiana, 332 U. S. 507, 517-518 (1947).

       15 U. S. C. §717 (a).

       See n. 1, supra.

       15 U. S. C. §717 (b).

       The Court in Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., supra, stated: “Congress, it is true, occupied a field. But it was meticulous to take in, only territory which this Court had held the states could not reach.” 332 U. S., at 519.

       15 U. S. C. § 717c (a).

         Id., § 717d (a).

        Id., § 7177.

        Id., § 717n (a).

        Id., § 717r (b).

       362 F. Supp. 522, 544.

        Ibid.

       Additional arguments to support the conclusion that state regulatory agencies were not intended to fall within the definition of “person” in the Natural Gas Act can be found by examination of that term’s use in other portions of the Act. For example, the very section in which the definition of “person” is found, 16 U. S. C. § 717a, contains an additional definition of “state commission.” Furthermore, in the same section, “natural-gas company” is defined to mean a “-person engaged in the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, or the sale in interstate commerce of such gas for resale.” (Emphasis added.) Obviously, inclusion of a state regulatory body within the definition of “person” in that section would be meaningless.
      Section 717r provides that “[a]ny person, State, municipality, or State commission aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission” may apply to the Commission for a rehearing. If the term “person” included state regulatory bodies as a matter of course, the duplicate use of “person” and “municipality” or “State commission” would be purely superfluous. Also, 15 U. S. C. § 717t provides that “[a]ny person” who willfully or knowingly violates the provisions of the Natural Gas Act shall be subject to fine or imprisonment. Certainly the word “person” in this subsection would not be held to apply to state regulatory bodies.

       Although the District Court stated that the “legislative environment” would be persuasive, it should be noted that the court made no study of the environment of the Natural Gas Act. The only environment examined related to the two acts discussed in the text, infra.


text:
    No. 73-1080.
    Holt et al. v. Yonce, Chairman, South Carolina Public Service Commission, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. C.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents from the summary affirmance.


text:
    No. 73-5972.
    Ramirez et al. v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill.

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


text:
    No. 73-586.
    McMullan et al. v. Wohlgemuth, Secretary of Welfare of Pennsylvania, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-1114.
    Winchester v. California.
   Appeal from App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of San Diego, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-1140.
    Kyser v. Board of Elections of Cuyahoga County et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-6161.
    Martinez v. Texas.
   Appeal from Ct. Crim. App. Tex. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-6133.
    Clayton v. Walter L. Couse Co. et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Mich, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-752.
    Miles v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Maze, 414 U. S. 395 (1974).

Mr. Chief Justice Burger, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Blackmun would affirm the judgment.


text:
    No. 73-5595.
    Richardson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded to the United States District Court for the Central District of California so that the judgment of conviction may be vacated as suggested by the Government in the memorandum filed February 25, 1974.


text:
    No. 73-5717.
    Reese v. U. S. Board of Parole et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Upon representation of the Solicitor General set forth in his memorandum for the United States filed February 20, 1974, judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of the position presently asserted by the Government.


text:
    No. 73-5761.
    Osher v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and cer-tiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Maze, 414 U. S. 395 (1974).


text:
    No. A-746.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Application for bail presented to

Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-820 (73-6388).
    McDonald v. Tennessee et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir.

Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-843 (73-6142).
    Radue v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir.

Application for stay and bail presented to MR. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-847.
    Persico v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Application for bail presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-23.
    In re Disbarment of Lee.
   It is ordered that Clifford Taylor Lee of Washington, D. 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. 92,
    October Term, 1970.
    Whitcomb, Governor of Indiana v. Chavis et al.,
   403 U. S. 124. Motions for modification of costs and to retax costs denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant the motion to retax costs.


text:
    No. 73-29.
    No. 73-695.
    Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, Secretary of Labor. Brennan, Secretary of Labor v. Corning Glass Works.
   C. A. 2d Cir.; and

C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1110.] Motion of American Civil Liberties Union et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 73-38.
    United States v. Marine Bancorporation, Inc., et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Wash. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 414 U. S. 907.] Motion of the Solicitor General for additional time for oral argument granted and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Motion of the Comptroller of the Currency for additional time for oral argument granted and appellees allotted 15 additional minutes for that purpose.


text:
    No. 73-362.
    No. 73-364.
    Morton, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Mancari et al.; and Amerind v. Mancari et al.
   Appeals from D. C. N. M. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 414 U. S. 1142, and ante, p. 946.] Motion of Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 73-370.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1062.] Motion of Chamber of Commerce of the United States for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of Heck’s, Inc., denied. Motion of Heck’s, Inc., for additional time for oral argument, or in the alternative for divided argument, denied.


text:
    No. 73-507.
    Hamling et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1143.] Renewed motion of petitioners for additional time for oral argument denied. Alternative request for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 73-556.
    No. 73-795.
    Florida Power & Light Co. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 641, et al.; and National Labor Relations Board v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1156.] Motion of the Solicitor General for additional time for oral argument granted and petitioners allotted 15 additional minutes for that purpose. Respondents also allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 73-640.
    Geduldig, Director, Department of Human Resources Development v. Aiello et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 414 U. S. 1110.] Motion of Physicians Forum for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 73-679.
    Wolff, Warden, et al. v. McDonnell.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1156.] Motion of respondent for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Douglas F. Duchek, Esquire, of Lincoln, Nebraska, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case. Motion of respondent that said Douglas F. Duchek be granted leave to present oral argument pro hac vice granted.


text:
    No. 73-767.
    United States v. Connecticut National Bank et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Conn. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 414 U. S. 1127.] Motion of the Solicitor General for additional time for oral argument granted and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Motion of the Comptroller of the Currency for additional time for oral argument granted and appellees allotted 15 additional minutes for that purpose.


text:
    No. 73-841.
    Holder, U. S. District Judge v. Banks.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1156.] Motion of respondent to supplement record and to defer oral argument denied.

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


text:
    No. 73-5280.
    Fuller v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1111.] Motion of National Legal Aid & Defender Assn, for leave to dispense with printing its amicus curiae brief denied.


text:
    No. 73-6240.
    Howard v. Wainwright, Corrections Director, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 73-296.
    Huffman et al. v. Pursue, Ltd.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ohio. Probable jurisdiction noted and case set for oral argument with No. 73-1119 [immediately infra].


text:
    No. 73-1119.
    MTM, Inc., et al. v. Baxley, Attorney General of Alabama, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ala. Probable jurisdiction noted and case set for oral argument with No. 73-296 [immediately supra].


text:
    No. 73-5772.
    Faretta v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-547.
    Guerra v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-702.
    Burger v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-723.
    No. 73-770.
    Adams County Board of Supervisors et al. v. Howard et al.; and Howard et al. v. Adams County Board of Supervisors et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-732.
    Sutter v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-746.
    Lasker, U. S. District Judge v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-747.
    Austin v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-757.
    No. 73-761.
    Levine v. United States; and Chippas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-837.
    Shelton v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-842.
    Bailey v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-855.
    Santiago et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-869.
    Olympia Brewing Co. v. Department of Revenue of Oregon.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-875.
    Forgione v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-881.
    Lincoln v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-885.
    Luna v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-894.
    Pennsylvania et al. v. Nash et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-924.
    Shelton v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-991.
    Sunnyside School District No. 12 v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-995.
    Sherman v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-997.
    Candella et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1023.
    Everett Steamship Corp., S/A v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1068.
    Jones v. Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 482 F. 2d 1093.


text:
    No. 73-1073.
    Warin v. Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division, Internal Revenue Service.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1089.
    Oseredzuk v. Warner Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1099.
    Bass v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1107.
    Rosen, Executive Director, U. S. Civil Service Commission, et al. v. Vaughn et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1110.
    Stavola v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1141.
    Whipple v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1151.
    Rosin et al. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1158.
    Fleming v. State Personnel Board et al.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1160.
    Trico Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Walker.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1164.
    Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. Duplan Corp. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1182.
    Franchise Tax Board of California v. Danning.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1183.
    Weems v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5457.
    Duke et al. v. Texas et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5529.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5631.
    Heng Awkak Roman et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5643.
    Sawyer v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5657.
    Daniels v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5669.
    McNally v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5678.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5692.
    Alver et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5711.
    Woods v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5713.
    Carthens v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5716.
    Liberti v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5719.
    Theriault v. Bartels et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5723.
    Garrison v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5725.
    Daulton v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5729.
    Tyson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5731.
    Minnay v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5736.
    Henderson v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5742.
    Leggett v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5745.
    Ryan v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5750.
    Harmon v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5753.
    Lindsey et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5754.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5756.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5763.
    Dukes v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5764.
    In re Spott.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certi-orari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5766.
    Stamper, aka Stafford v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5771.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5783.
    Clements v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5790.
    Cozad v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5791.
    No. 73-5799.
    Lenze v. United States; and Busby v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5801.
    Marzette v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5830.
    DeMarrias v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5831.
    Farries v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5840.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5851.
    Summers v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5864.
    Sierra v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5871.
    Pomeroy v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5892.
    Haverty v. Burdman, Acting Secretary, Department of Social and Health Services.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5897.
    Suarez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5901.
    Pauldino v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5902.
    Johnson v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5912.
    Bonaparte v. Caldwell, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5919.
    Bryant v. Caldwell, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5926.
    Sager, aka McClintock v. Ulibarri.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5928.
    No. 73-5959.
    Davis v. United States; and Fletcher v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5947.
    Harris v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5965.
    Reddick v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5966.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5999.
    Isaacs v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6000.
    DeBenedictus v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6001.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6123.
    Griffin v. Vincent, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6136.
    Dapper v. Richards et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6138.
    Brown v. Hopper, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6140.
    Hannan v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6143.
    Sullivan v. Twomey, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6146.
    Bonnett v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6147.
    Jackson v. Ulrich Manufacturing Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6153.
    Collins v. New Hampshire.
   Sup. Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6178.
    Legum v. New York.
   App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6202.
    Billings v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6206.
    Brantley v. City of Dallas.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 11th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1437.
    Lynch et al. v. Snepp et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Mr. Chief Justice Burger,

text:
    No. 73-425.
    New York v. Sutton et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Motion of respondent Peltzman for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Chief Justice Burger,

with whom Mr. Justice Blackmun joins,

dissenting.

I dissent because I cannot agree that this case does not merit oral argument. Nor do I agree that if this is the kind of narcotics law enforcement New York wants, that is up to New York. Here the New York Court of Appeals has rested its decision on federal constitutional grounds. Absent full oral argument, I would grant the writ and reverse the judgment of that court essentially for the reasons stated by the three dissenting judges of that court.


text:
    No. 73-739.
    Coiner, Warden v. Hart.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Chief Justice Burger and Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-810.
    Pennsylvania v. Felton.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1221.
    Continental Casualty Co. v. Ward.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-983.
    No. 73-5430.
    No. 73-5714.
    Wai Kwon Yip et al. v. United States; Pui Leung Lam v. United States; and Pui Kan Lam v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1132.
    Arnold et al. v. Tiffany et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5734.
    Dupart v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5788.
    Rawlinson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5815.
    No. 73-5821.
    Reid v. Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent; and Vischio v. Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1122.
    Buxton v. International Business Machines et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 73-5835.
    Salazar v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5878.
    Green v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5908.
    Burge v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-988.
    Carlson v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari and reverse.


text:
    No. 73-1125.
    Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., et al. v. Container Corporation of America et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion to defer consideration and certi-orari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1159.
    Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Hood.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari in light of important First and Fourteenth Amendment questions that are raised. See 486 F. 2d 25, 28-30, with which views Mr. Justice Douglas disagrees.


text:
    No. 73-5828.
    Pernell v. Rose, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand the case on grounds of mootness.


text:
    No. 73-6124.
    McKinley v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division et al.
   App. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would deny certiorari because petition was filed out of time.


text:
    No. 72-1019.
    No. 73-843.
    No. 73-5484.
    No. 73-5624.
    No. 73-5881.
    No. 73-5915.
    Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, Administratrix, Lykes Brothers Steamship Co., Inc. v. Brown, Hooks v. Roberts, Warden, Hazzard v. Social Security Administration et al., Tilley v. North Carolina, Kaplan v. Continental Can Co., Inc.,
   414 U. S. 573;

414 U. S. 1158;

414 U. S. 1163;

414 U. S. 1134;

ante, p. 926; and

ante, p. 927. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-6891.
    Shinder v. Esmiol,
   414 U. S. 848. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    March 25, 1974
    No. 73-949.
    McIlvaine v. Pennsylvania.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

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


text:
    No. 73-1139.
    Franks v. Wilson, Judge, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Colo, dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents from dismissal of the appeal.


text:
    No. 73-6031.
    Kaplan v. Kaplan.
   Appeal from App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5847.
    Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.,
   ante, p. 36. Motion of petitioner for attorneys’ fees as part of taxable costs denied as not appropriate for consideration by this Court.

Mr. Justice Douglas would refer motion to the District Court for hearing on retaxing costs.


text:
    No. 73-191.
    Village of Belle Terre et al. v. Boraas et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 2d Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 414 U. S. 907.] Motion of New Communities, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae after argument deified.


text:
    No. 73-437.
    No. 73-457.
    No. 73-464.
    Mobil Oil Corp. v. Federal Power Commission et al.; Public Service Commission of New York v. Federal Power Commission et al.; and Municipal Distributors Group v. Federal Power Commission et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1142.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted. Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 73-482.
    Michigan v. Tucker.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1062.] Motion of Women Lawyers Association of Michigan for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 73-781.
    Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1156.] Motion of American Arbitration Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 73-5936.
    No. 73-6308.
    Jeffers v. Wainwright, Corrections Director; and Hunter v. New York Department of Correctional Services et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 73-6119.
    Sayles v. Sirica, U. S. District Judge.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 73-628.
    Allenberg Cotton Co., Inc. v. Pittman.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Miss. Further consideration of question of jurisdiction postponed to hearing of case on the merits.


text:
    No. 73-1012.
    Gulf Oil Corp. et al. v. Copp Paving Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1(a), (b), and (c) presented in the petition, which read as follows:

“1. With respect to a commodity which is not only made and sold in one state alone but is only salable and usable in that state, does the fact that it is used in an instrumentality of commerce such as a highway supply the necessary requirements, by itself and as a matter of law

“ (a) Of the anti-discrimination clause of the Robinson-Patman Act that the discriminatory sale be by a 'person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce/ that 'either or any of the purchases involved . . . [be] in commerce/ and that the 'effect . . . may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce’?

“(b) Of Section 3 of the Clayton Act that the tying conduct be that of a 'person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce’ and that ‘the effect . . . may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce’ ?

“(c) Of Section 7 of the Clayton Act that the acquisition by a ‘corporation engaged in commerce’ be of a corporation ‘engaged also in commerce,’ and that ‘the effect . . . may be substantially to lessen competition, or tend to create a monopoly,’ where the acquired corporation sold nothing in commerce and the product it made did not enter commerce?”


text:
    No. 73-431.
    Broccolino, Judge v. Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities et al.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-779.
    No. 73-926.
    Lemonakis v. United States; and Enten v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-832.
    Rogers v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-838.
    Kugler, Attorney General of New Jersey v. Young Women’s Christian Assn. of Princeton et al.
   Petition for certiorari before judgment to C. A. 3d Cir. denied.


text:
    No. 73-857.
    Medansky v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-859.
    Peters v. Smith et ux.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-864.
    Cahalane v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-895.
    Landwehr v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-902.
    Florida Mining & Materials Corp., dba McCormick Concrete Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-914.
    No. 73-1201.
    Baker et al., Trustees in Bankruptcy v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. et al.; and Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. et al. v. Baker et al., Trustees in Bankruptcy.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-935.
    Dressel et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-998.
    Parker et al. v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1047.
    Boyd v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1137.
    American Fidelity Fire Insurance Co. v. State Board of Equalization of California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1167.
    Ken Foster Co., Inc. v. Chrysler Leasing Corp. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1168.
    Keitt et al. v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1171.
    Stanback v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1194.
    Toyah Independent School District et al. v. Pecos-Barstow Consolidated Independent School District et al.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 8th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1195.
    Schneideman, dba Adeptco v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1198.
    Cain et al. v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1202.
    Wilson et al. v. Midwest Folding Products Manufacturing Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1203.
    Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. King, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5727.
    Sanchez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5746.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5858.
    Miranda-Lozano v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5862.
    Bowles v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5875.
    Juarez v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5885.
    Clements v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5904.
    Thacker v. Blackledge, Prison Administrator.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5907.
    Dowdy v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5910.
    Davis v. Ault, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5932.
    Brinkley v. Clanon, Medical Facility Superintendent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5953.
    McGiff v. Wyoming.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5957.
    Wilkins v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5964.
    White et al. v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5967.
    McClindon v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5980.
    DeMarin v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6013.
    Ford v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6073.
    Gerik v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6085.
    Booker v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6090.
    Howard v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6104.
    Castelhun v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6139.
    Nicholson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6156.
    Olsen v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6159.
    Hobson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6174.
    Jones v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6184.
    Coulverson v. Gray, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6186.
    Smilgus v. Kimmel et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6189.
    Ashton v. Anderson, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6190.
    Berger v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6191.
    Duran v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6198.
    Westlake v. Michigan et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6208.
    Trocodaro v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6212.
    Jones v. Nelson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6229.
    Schlette v. California Adult Authority et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6261.
    Stokes v. Black, Reformatory Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6269.
    Pruett v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-665.
    Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft et al. v. Prashar et ux.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-809.
    Rossi et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion to defer consideration and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-916.
    No. 73-917.
    Marrapese v. United States; and Zinni v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.

Reported below: 486 F. 2d 918.


text:
    No. 73-1034.
    Kille v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1082.
    Cincinnati District Council 51, American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. City of Cincinnati et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1084.
    Rynerson v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1267.
    Michael S. v. City of New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1009.
    Hayden, Stone Inc. et al. v. Piantes et al.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied as untimely-filed. 28 U. S. C. § 2101 (c).


text:
    No. 73-6251.
    Pruett v. First National Bank of Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied as untimely filed. 28 U. S. C. § 2101 (c).


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. 73-1169.
    Flaherty et al. v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall concur,

dissenting.

Petitioners have been convicted of operating a gambling house, in violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-2001 (1964). 255 Ark. 187, 500 S. W. 2d 87. They challenge the introduction into evidence of tape recordings of telephone conversations which they claim were seized in violation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seg.

A warrant was issued to search petitioner- Flaherty’s home. After being admitted to the home, state officers placed petitioners under arrest and without petitioners’ consent monitored incoming phone calls placing bets for one hour. An officer attached a suction cup containing an induction coil to the telephone and, impersonating petitioners, recorded the calls being made to the telephone. It is undisputed that the search warrant did not authorize the search and seizure of such calls, and the petitioners did not consent to the seizure of the calls. Petitioners argue that the police intent to record the calls without securing a search warrant is evidenced by the fact the police brought the induction coil and recording equipment with them when executing the warrant.

Petitioners claim that the seizures were made in violation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, a detailed scheme created by Congress to allow the use of electronic surveillance by the States to intercept wire and oral communications only under stringently defined circumstances, clearly not met here. Under Title III, there must be a judicial order to intercept conversations; the application for the order must have been authorized by the principal prosecuting attorney of the State or a political subdivision, 18 U. S. C. § 2516 (2); must contain carefully specified information, § 2518 (1); and the judge before issuing the order must make detailed findings of fact, §2518 (3), and include certain information in the order, § 2518 (4).

The Arkansas Supreme Court suggested that the calls in this case were not “intercepted” within the meaning of the statute, since the police officer merely answered the telephone when it rang. The contention is without merit. Title III defines “intercept” broadly as the “aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.” 18 U. S. C. §2510(4). The contents of the communications in this case were clearly acquired by use of electronic and mechanical devices — an induction coil was affixed to the telephone and the conversations thereby monitored were fed into a tape recorder.

That an “interception” can occur without overhearing a conversation being carried between two other persons is made clear by 18 U. S. C. §2511 (2)(c). This section comprehends that a party to a communication can “intercept” it within the meaning of the statute; it provides, however, that such interception is not unlawful within the meaning of Title III:

“It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.” 18 TJ. S. C. §2511 (2)(c).

In any event, the Arkansas Supreme Court did not rely on the “interception” concept in disposing of petitioners’ claim; it placed express reliance on the “party” exception contained in § 2511 (2) (c), supra. Noting that the section provides an exception to the ban on warrant-less interceptions for a party to the communication, the court reasoned that the police officer, impersonating petitioners, was a party to the communications and thus could record them without a warrant.

We must, however, interpret § 2511 (2)(c) in light of existing constitutional standards. See S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 66 (1968). The party exception and the consent-of-a-party exception must have their justification in the decisions of this Court. “Bugged informer” cases have permitted the introduction of transmitted or recorded evidence, seized without a warrant, where the transmission or recording has been with the consent of a party to an oral communication. See, e. g., Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427; United States v. White, 401 U. S. 745. The Court has also permitted telephonic conversations to be overheard with the consent of a party to the conversation. See Rathbun v. United States, 355 U. S. 107 (no “interception” within meaning of § 605 of Federal Communications Act of 1934 when party to conversation allowed police to listen on extension telephone).

But these cases do not reach the instant case. The principle underlying them is that when one reveals information to an individual, one takes the risk that one’s confidence in that individual might be misplaced.' The individual might be a government informer or agent, or might later reveal one’s confidences to others. When he talks, it is only the trust placed in him that is breached. But here the callers were deceived as to the identities of the individuals with whom they were speaking. Trust was not misplaced in petitioner Flaherty, who then revealed information or allowed the police to listen in; trust was misplaced in the assumption that an individual identifying himself as Flaherty was in fact the person known to the callers as Flaherty.

Allowing the government to practice deception in this case carries the seeds of destroying a substantial part of the congressional plan in Title III and its constitutional underpinnings. By impersonation, the police - could engage in conversations with unsuspecting callers, becoming technical “parties” to the conversations. In the instant case, a standard warrant to search a home for physical evidence was transmuted into the power to search and seize all incoming calls without any of the protections inherent in Title Ill’s requirements. But the principle would seemingly extend beyond this situation, even to the situation where the police intercepted calls before they reached a recipient’s telephone and mimicked the intended recipient’s voice, inducing a conversation to which the police were “parties.” It is unthinkable that a carefully drawn legislative plan can consistently with constitutional principles be frustrated in a manner leaving no legal protection for the privacy and security of telephone conversations as long as callers can be successfully deceived. We have not yet reached the point where the people must use secret passwords to establish their identities when communicating by telephone.

I would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment below.

       Some callers asked to speak to petitioner Whipple and some asked to speak to petitioner Flaherty. The officer who monitored the phone admitted that on some occasions at least he "posed as” and was “impersonating” Flaherty. R. 235-236.

       Both the Arkansas Supreme Court and respondent note that when the officers appeared at Flaherty’s home with the search warrant, petitioners “invited” them into the home. But there is no suggestion that petitioners, under arrest, consented to the warrant-less interception of the telephone calls.

       Petitioners claim that the Fourth Amendment was violated when the police took over the phone and seized the incoming conversations without a warrant by impersonating petitioners. There is no dispute that the search warrant did not encompass the seizure of the incoming telephone calls, and the intention of the police to seize the calls when they entered the home is uncontested. There is, however, some question whether this argument was presented to the court below; respondent contends that “this exact argument” was not presented. In any event, the Fourth Amendment issue would necessarily be implicated in consideration of the Title III issue, properly raised by petitioners. See infra.

      Indeed, Congress has ample power to provide protection for the privacy of telephonic communications more comprehensive than that provided by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. This power reaches not only interstate but also intrastate telephonic communications. See Weiss v. United States, 308 U. S. 321, 327. And it enables Congress to require suppression of evidence in both federal and state proceedings. See Nardone v. United States, 302 U. S. 379; Lee v. Florida, 392 U. S. 378.

        United States v. Pasha, 332 F. 2d 193, and Rathbun v. United States, 355 U. S. 107, involved “interceptions” under § 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, which did not have the broad express definition contained in Title III. State v. Vizzini, 115 N. J. Super. 97, 278 A. 2d 235, also relied on by the Arkansas court, mistakenly interpreted Title III in light of § 605 precedent.

       See United States v. White, 401 U. S. 745, 752; Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427, 438; Rathbun v. United States, supra, at 111. The risk is assumed when one speaks to a trusted acquaintance, cf. Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293, 302, and perhaps even more clearly when one knowingly and willingly confides in a stranger, cf. Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206, 210.


text:
    No. 73-5920.
    Booth v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5961.
    Ross v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5988.
    Kimes v. Wolff.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-6200.
    Scarborough v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1196.
    State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations et al. v. United Parcel Service.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari. Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 73-6203.
    Foster v. Montanye, Correctional Superintendent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Motion to defer consideration denied. Petition for writ of certiorari denied as untimely filed. 28 U. S. C. §2101 (c).


text:
    No. 73-976.
    No. 73-5942.
    Johnson v. Wilmer et al., Bronson v. Bronson,
   ante, p. 911 ; and

ante, p. 928. Petitions for rehearing denied.,


author: Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.

text:
    HUGHES et al. v. THOMPSON
    No. A-719.
    Decided January 25, 1974
   Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.

This motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition has been presented to me after a like motion was denied by the Court of Appeals on January 24, 1974. The matter concerns proceedings before the United States District Judge in Reno, Nevada, scheduled for a hearing at 9:30 a. m. P. d. t. today, January 25, 1974, which is only a little more than an hour from the time in which I write this short opinion.

The movants have been indicted for alleged manipulation of the stock of an airline company prior to its acquisition about five years ago — an acquisition which was approved by the Civil Aeronautics Board. Mov-ants have filed with the District Court a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute any offense against the United States and fails to inform movants of the nature of the cause of the accusation within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Mov-ants desire that their motion to dismiss be ruled upon prior to the arraignment. They asked the District Judge for a stay of all proceedings until the motion to dismiss the indictment was ruled upon. This stay was denied by the District Judge and, as noted, the Court of Appeals denied relief.

In cases such as the present one, where the factor of time is all important, it is customary (where possible) to consult other members of the Court before acting so that if there is a member of the Court available who feels that relief should be granted that fact can be taken into consideration. If, however, none of the Justices available feel relief should be granted then the prior consultation with those who are available is some aid to counsel seeking the relief.

Some Members of the Court are out of the city at the present time, as the Court is in recess. I have talked with five who are present and they are of the opinion that the motion to file should be denied. That is my view. Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure the question of the sufficiency of the indictment “shall be noticed by the court at any time.” Rule 12 (b) (2). Whether the motion should be disposed of prior to the arraignment rests in the sound discretion of the District Court. The District Court certainly has the power to follow that course and sometimes it may be important to prevent harassment or the use of other unconstitutional procedures against an accused. But it would take an extremely unusual case for an appellate judge to direct a district judge that he should exercise his discretion by postponing an arraignment until after the motion to dismiss the indictment has been resolved. As stated in Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359, 364:

“In a trial on the merits, defendants are entitled to a strict observance of all the rules designed to bring about a fair verdict. Defendants are not entitled, however, to a rule which would result in interminable delay but add nothing to the assurance of a fair trial.”

Motion denied.

      Mandatory language directing when a motion shall be ruled upon is contained in Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 12 (b) (4) which states that a motion raising defenses or objections “shall be determined before trial unless the court orders that it be deferred for determination at the trial of the general issue.”


text:
    HAYAKAWA et al. v. BROWN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.
    No. A-839.
    Decided March 4, 1974
   Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.

Hayakawa desires to run for the Senate from California on the Republican ticket. He has until March 8, 1974, to file. When the County Clerk and Secretary of State refused to accept his papers, he petitioned California’s Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. That court on a 4-to-3 vote denied it, no opinion being written. Hayakawa plans to apply for certiorari here from that denial and meanwhile wants me to stay the order of the California Supreme Court denying mkndamus, pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari here. His application also requests me to restrain the state officials from refusing to accept his nomination papers.

The barrier confronting the state officials is § 6401 of the California Election Code which prohibits a candidate from being a candidate of one party when he has within 12 months been registered with another party. Cases raising the constitutionality of provisions of that character are before the Court and not yet decided in No. 72-812, Storer v. Brown, and No. 72-6050, Frommhagen v. Brown. It would seem at first blush that the present case, being of the same kind as Storer and Frommhagen, should be considered along with them.

The difficulty is that I have no way of knowing whether denial of the writ of mandamus rested on an independent state ground. That is an extraordinary writ, the issuance of which is traditionally discretionary. It may be that one acquainted with the labyrinth of California procedure would see the answer more clearly than I do. Yet the federal question — our only fulcrum in the case — has not yet surfaced in the litigation, as denial of mandamus, without more, may conceal a number of independent state grounds.

Application denied.