text:
    No. 74-5278.
    Pittman v. Lewis, Prison Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 74—5286.
    Lombardi v. Casscles, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5288.
    Myers, dba Romyco Stereo v. Ampex, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5293.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5296.
    Clark v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5305.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5332.
    Rademaker v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5364.
    Verville, Administrator v. Botsford General Hospital et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5382.
    Skidmore v. National Railroad Adjustment Board, Third Division, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7090.
    Weir v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certio-rari.


text:
    No. 74-45.
    Pesikoff et al. v. Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-62.
    Genovese v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-131.
    Nocar et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5229.
    Taylor, aka Miller v. Bratton, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5276.
    Medina v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5316.
    Murray v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5322.
    Lovely v. Laliberte et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5340.
    Gibbs et al. v. Garver, Director, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certio-rari.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. 74-51.
    Izzi v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted by a municipal court of illegal possession of a firearm. Subsequently the Federal Government became interested in the matter, and petitioner was convicted of receiving or possessing a firearm in commerce or affecting commerce. Petitioner is a previously convicted felon, which is an element of the federal offense.

I would grant certiorari in this case limited to the double jeopardy issue which is raised by petitioner’s two prosecutions for the same offense. The Solicitor General argues that, because of the interstate-commerce and previously-convicted-felon elements of the federal offense, the two prosecutions did not involve the “same evidence.” I am unpersuaded by this approach to the problem, since I believe that a “same transaction” standard is appropriate. See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 448-460 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). The Solicitor General also argues that the two prosecutions were permissible because they were carried out by separate sovereigns, but I do not agree with this reasoning either. See Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121, 150-170 (1959) (Black and Brennan, JJ., dissenting); Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187, 196-204 (1959) (Black and Brennan, JJ., dissenting).

The Court of Appeals reached the merits of the double jeopardy claim here, but it did so only after noting that the claim appeared not to have been raised below. I do not believe that petitioner’s failure to plead double jeopardy at trial, if indeed there was such a failure, should block consideration of that issue. Cf. LaRuffa v. New York, ante, p. 959; Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S. 21 (1974); Robinson v. Neil, 409 U. S. 505 (1973).

Because I believe that petitioner has an arguably meritorious claim on the double jeopardy issue I think we should grant certiorari on that question and set this case for argument.


text:
    No. 74-116.
    Place v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 74-117.

    International Longshoremen’s Association, Local No. 1581, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 74-176.
    Johnson et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Powell would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-251.
    Levinson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Blackmun, and Mr. Justice Powell would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-298.
    Process Equipment Engineering Co., Inc. v. Tennessee Eastman Co., A Division of Eastman Kodak Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 74-390.
    Lavine, Commissioner, Department of Social Services v. Boines by Gaines.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pawperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-391.
    Cowan, Penitentiary Superintendent v. Caudill.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1553.
    No. 73-1753.
    No. 73-1889.
    No. 73-1972.
    No. 73-6443.
    No. 73-6616.
    No. 73-6701.
    No. 73-6768.
    No. 73-6775.
    Green et al. v. United States, In re Estate of Cassidy et al., Whitlock, Executrix v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cannon, Warden, et al. v. Thomas et al., Greene et al. v. United States, Angel v. Coiner, Warden, Campbell v. California et al., Kopas et al. v. United States et al., Kopas et al. v. United States Tax Court et al.,
   ante, p. 827;

ante, p. 882;

ante, p. 839;

ante, p. 813;

ante, p. 977;

ante, p. 850;

ante, p. 853;

ante, p. 857; and

ante, p. 857. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 73-1179.
    Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., et al. v. Stamm, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, et al.,
   416 U. S. 974. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 73-6827.
    Kreager v. General Electric Co. et al.,
   ante, p. 861. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 74-256.
    American Institute for Shippers’ Assns., Inc., et al. v. United States et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. R. I.

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


text:
    No. 74-285.
    George Transfer & Rigging Co., Inc. v. United States et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Md.


text:
    No. 74-360.
    Long Island Rail Road Co. v. United States et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. E. D. N. Y.


text:
    No. 74-471.
    Cassidy et al. v. Willis, Election Commissioner of Delaware, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from Sup. Ct. Del.


text:
    No. 74-426.
    Joiner et al. v. City of Dallas et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Tex.

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


text:
    No. 74-307.
    B & L Motor Freight, Inc., et al. v. Heymann, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. J. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

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


text:
    No. 74-326.
    Mason, Secretary, Department of Employment and Social Services, et al. v. Francis et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Md. Motion of appellee Francis for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-336.
    Smith, dba Holiday Health Club, et al. v. Keator, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. C. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 74-344.
    McCollough v. Illinois.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 74-5029.
    Ivory v. Florida.
   Appeal from Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st 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. -.
    Mark Trail Camp Grounds, Inc. v. Field Enterprises, Inc., dba Publishers-Hall Syndicate.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.


text:
    No. 71-6356.
    Doe et al. v. McMillan et al.,
   412 U. S. 306. Motion of petitioners for clarification of opinion of this Court denied.


text:
    No. 73-662.
    Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Councilman.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 414 U. S. 1111.] Motion of respondent for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 73-717.
    Antoine et ux. v. Washington.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Wash. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 417 U. S. 966.] Motion of appellee to strike brief of the United States 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. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 417 U. S. 943.] Motion of Isadore Greenberg, Esquire, to permit Douglas A. Eldridge, Esquire, to present oral argument pro hac vice on behalf of appellee Stuck granted. Motion of the State of Iowa for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 73-1462.
    White, Secretary of State of Texas, et al. v. Regester et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Tex. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 417 U. S. 906.] Motion of appellees for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 73-1500.
    Erickson, Warden v. United States ex rel. Feather et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 417 U. S. 929.] Motion of respondents for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 73-1631.
    Ostrer v. United States,
   ante, p. 829. Motion to modify denial of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2000.
    United States v. Peltier.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 993.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Sandor W. Shapery, Esquire, of LaJolla, Cal., be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 73-6923.
    Rice et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Gloria Mae Gilmore et al. to join in petition granted.


text:
    No. 74-520.
    Montanye, Correctional Superintendent, et al. v. Haymes.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion to expedite denied.


text:
    No. 74-5140.
    Cassius v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 824.] Motion of petitioner to permit Frederick S. Klein, Esquire, to present oral argument pro hac vice granted.


text:
    No. 74-5373.
    No. 74-5437.
    Anderson v. Reed, Penitentiary Superintendent; and Lewis v. English, Facility Superintendent.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 74-464.
    Cupp v. United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 74-5368.
    Kennedy et al. v. Wyoming et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 74-453.
    Van Lare, Acting Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York, et al. v. Hurley et al.
   Appear from D. C. S. D. N. Y. and D. C. E. D. N. Y. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted and case set for oral argument with No. 74-5054 [Taylor v. Lavine, certiorari granted, infra].


text:
    No. 73-1888.
    United States v. Alaska.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 74-364.
    United States v. Hale.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 74-5054.
    Taylor et al. v. Lavine, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Case set for oral argument with No. 74-453 [Van Lare v. Hurley, probable jurisdiction noted, supra].


text:
    No. 73-6830.
    Juarez v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6890.
    Ellingburg v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6938.
    Green v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6991.
    Williams v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6999.
    Pittman v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7055.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7080.
    Bone v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7081.
    Powell v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7102.
    Swanson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-19.
    No. 73-6931.
    Brewer v. United States; and Mackay v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 491 F. 2d 616.


text:
    No. 74-65.
    Clingon v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-93.
    No. 74-138.
    Brown et al. v. United States; and Prader et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 499 F. 2d 829.


text:
    No. 74-98.
    No. 74-5106.
    No. 74-5119.
    No. 74-5120.
    No. 74-5121.
    No. 74-5138.
    Donner v. United States; McNamara v. United States; Mack v. United States; McNamara v. United States; Williams v. United States; and Kennedy v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 497 F. 2d 184.


text:
    No. 74-109.
    Rachal et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-110.
    Pfotzer et al., dba E. & E. J. Pfotzer v. Warholic et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-111.
    Pfotzer et al. v. City of Norwalk et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-133.
    Calderon v. Board of Education of the El Monte School District of Los Angeles County.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-144.
    Cox v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-146.
    Catena v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-170.
    Andrino v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-180.
    Siegel et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-184.
    Ross v. United States et al.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-189.
    Im et al., Minors, by Im v. Saxbe, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-210.
    Shepard v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-228.
    No. 74-5285.
    Taylor v. United States; and Hearn v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 496 F. 2d 236.


text:
    No. 74-233.
    No. 74-234.
    Department of Transportation of Maryland et al. v. Civil Aeronautics Board et al.; and Virginia v. Civil Aeronautics Board et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 498 F. 2d 129.


text:
    No. 74-243.
    Pacente v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-247.
    Simmons v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-266.
    Tucker v. Wiggins et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-271.
    Fresta v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-273.
    Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Papilsky et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-317.
    Cameron et al. v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-327.
    Hart v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-328.
    Patch v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-346.
    Federal Prescription Service, Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-355.
    McCormick, Executor, et al. v. Finnerman et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-385.
    York International Building, Inc., et al. v. Chaney, Trustee.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-417.
    Heirs of Burat (Buras) v. Board of Levee Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District of Louisiana et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-419.
    Automotive Chauffeurs, Parts & Garage Employees, Local Union 926, et al. v. NAPA Pittsburgh, Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-422.

    Dunbar v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-435.
    Ward v. Philadelphia Electric Co.
   Super. Ct. Pa.' Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-424.
    Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Franks et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-425.
    International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 18, AFL-CIO v. Dayton Power & Light Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-430.
    Modern Air Transport, Inc. v. International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, District No. 145.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-433.
    Christman v. Hanrahan et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-448.
    Marth, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. Dannerbeck et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-451.
    United States v. Griffin et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-455.
    Response of Carolina, Inc., et al. v. Leasco Response, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 74-457.
    Crane v. Industrial Commission of Illinois et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-480.
    Deering v. City of Seattle et al.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-482.
    Cissna v. McQuaid, Trustee in Bankruptcy.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-486.
    New Jersey v. Sheffield et al.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5003.
    Wilbanks et al. v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5014.
    Martinez, aka Gonzales, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5067.
    Perry v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5113.
    Wiemer v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5117.
    Felts v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5177.
    No. 74-5300.
    Brawer et al. v. United States; and Kreshik v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5191.
    Qualls v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5197.
    Bryant v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5211.
    Rockwell v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5213.
    Skelley v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5223.
    Pennick v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5231.
    Hawkins v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5238.
    Mackin, aka Nelson, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5243.
    Jordan et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5249.
    Ellis v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5253.
    Poston v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5258.
    Wagoner v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5261.
    Collins v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5265.
    Douglas v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5273.
    Hill et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5275.
    Vasquez-Casillaz v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. ■ Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5282.
    Sanguandikul v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5284.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5290.
    Brierly v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5291.
    Lacouture v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5292.
    Weaver v. Cannon, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5298.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5299.
    Magid v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5303.
    Resnick v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5308.
    Miller v. Nelson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5311.
    Santana v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5312.
    King v. Moore.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5317.
    Ruiz v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5319.
    Long v. Porelle, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 7-4-5324.
    Rogers v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5326.
    Lee v. Hopper, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5335.
    McCoy v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5336.
    Esser v. Tripodi et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5338.
    McCants v. Alabama.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5339.
    Hartmann v. New York et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5342.
    No. 74-5344.
    No. 74-5345.
    Castaphney v. United States; Brown v. United States; and Goshay v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 500 F. 2d 1399 and 1400.


text:
    No. 74-5346.
    Kessler v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5355.
    Harris v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5356.
    Paul v. New Mexico.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5358.
    D’Amico et al. v. Liberty Corp. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5361.
    Cross v. Church, County Clerk-Recorder.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5362.
    Friedman v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5377.
    Farries v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5380.
    Yopp v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5386.
    Allen v. Hopper, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74 — 5387.
    Williams v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5388.
    Davis v. Estelle, Correction's Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5389.
    Peacock v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5392.
    Trigg v. Illinois.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5393.
    Hill v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5396.
    Gray v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5404.
    Jackson v. Wyoming.
   Sup: Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5415.
    Mendoza v. Campbell, Superintendent, Motor Vehicle Division, Highway Department of Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5416.
    Barbosa v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5417.
    Stevens v. Asch.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certi-orari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5421.
    Gore v. Sielaff, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5428.
    Waters v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5440.
    Davis v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1832.
    No. 73-1837.
    No. 73-1859.
    No. 73-1987.
    Cirillo et al. v. United States; Lilienthal v. United States; Sorrentino et al. v. United States; and Venetucci v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.

Reported below: 499 F. 2d 872.


text:
    No. 74-104.
    In re Porter.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-118.
    Bishop, Administrator v. Hendricks.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-139.
    Kitchens v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-154.
    Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-219.
    Toliver v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-232.
    Vigorito et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-387.
    Karlan v. City of Cincinnati.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-408.
    Pietrunti v. Board of Education of Brick Township.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-421.
    Cleveland Browns, Inc. v. United States.
   Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-447.
    Sauquoit Fibers Co., Inc. v. Leesona Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-467.
    Building Owners & Managers Association of Metropolitan Detroit et al. v. Detroit Edison Co. et al.
   Cir. Ct., Ingham County, Mich. Certi-orari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5032.
    Montgomery et al. v. California.
   Super. Ct. Cal., County of Sacramento. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 7445128.
    Betts v. County Court for LaCrosse County, Branch II, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5160.
    McNeil v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5225.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5375.
    Snyder v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mu. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5385.
    Eli v. Britt, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5447.
    Hayes v. Cady, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-78.
    Preiser, Correctional Commissioner of New York, et al. v. Williams.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas.

text:
    No. 74—350.
    Troopers Lodge No. 41, Fraternal Order of Police, et al. v. Walker, Governor of Illinois, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Powell would grant certiorari.

Mr. Justice Douglas.

The petitioners are members of the Illinois State Police who, joined by their fraternal organization, challenge an Illinois regulatory program that requires disclosure of financial transactions and associations by state employees. The program was created by an executive order of the Governor of Illinois. The order established a State Board of Ethics, empowered to require designated state employees to file an annual statement of economic interest, which discloses assets and liabilities, each source of income and the amount received therefrom, and each “close economic association,” which is defined as a “business or professional entity with which the person is associated as an officer, employee, director or partner or in which he has a substantial interest.” The foregoing disclosures must be made not only by the employee himself, but also by members of his immediate family sharing his household. Information so reported is open to “reasonable public inspection.” Failure to make the required disclosures subjects the employee to disciplinary action, including discharge.

The executive order applies by its terms only to members of the executive branch. Were this the only element of the Illinois scheme to discourage conflict of interests among those who hold public office, I believe a substantial equal protection question would be presented. The State has an undeniably strong interest in placing beyond question the integrity of its public service. But this is an interest that applies to all branches of the government, and where a State singles out a target group of employees, it is arguably compelled by the Equal Protection Clause to justify the differential treatment. The .Illinois program, however, is greater than the executive order, and I add this word because it is not discussed in the briefs nor in the opinion in this case. The Illinois Governmental Ethics Act, passed in 1972, in addition to prescribing a “code of conduct” for legislators, requires the disclosure of “economic interest” by members of the legislature and independent agencies, Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 127, §601-101 et seg. (1973). Criminal penalties are provided for the filing of false statements, and failure to disclose at all subjects the officer to forfeiture of his office, § 604A-107. The statute provides for public examination of statements “at all reasonable times,” § 604A-106. Judges have similar reporting obligations under a rule of the Illinois Supreme Court, Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 110A, § 68 (1973). Since it appears that Illinois has offered evenhanded treatment, I accordingly join in the denial of certiorari.

       See also, Note, The Illinois Governmental Ethics Act — A Step Ahead Toward Better Government, 22 De Paul L. Rev. 302 (1972).

       Statements filed by judges are not automatically open to public inspection, but litigants in a particular case may ascertain, through an administrative procedure, whether a judge has had an economic interest in the outcome. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 110A, §§ 66-68 (1973).


text:
    No. 73-1387.
    No. 73-1559.
    No. 73-1624.
    No. 73-1657.
    No. 73-1709.
    No. 73-1713.
    No. 73-1741.
    No. 73-1756.
    No. 73-1826.
    No. 73-1935.
    No. 73-1953.
    No. 73-2061.
    No. 73-6625.
    No. 73-6629.
    No. 73-6710.
    Fithian v. Fithian, Fairview Nursing Home v. National Labor Relations Board, Andrea Dumon, Inc., et al. v. Clairol, Inc., Estate of Meade et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Sneiders v. Henry, Smyzer v. Kentucky, Persico et al. v. United States, Biddle, Administratrix v. Bowser, Pettitt et ux. v. City of Fresno et al., Payne, a Minor, by Payne v. City of Fort Lauderdale et al., Cannon v. Oviatt, Smith v. United States, Coulter v. United States, Pryor v. United States, Zaun et ux. v. Fann, Sheriff, et al.,
   ante, p. 825;

ante, p. 827 ;

ante, p. 873;

ante, p. 882;

ante, p. 832;

ante, p. 832;

ante, p. 924;

ante, p. 834;

ante, p. 810;

ante, p. 875;

ante, p. 810;

ante, p. 964;

ante, p. 850;

ante, p. 977; and

ante, p. 854. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 73-6774.
    No. 73-6806.
    No. 73-6912.
    No. 73-6964.
    No. 73-6968.
    No. 73-7019.
    No. 74-1.
    No. 74-90.
    No. 74-194.
    Ephraim v. Estelle, Corrections Director, Sotelo et ux. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Lee v. Alabama, Olenz v. Teletype Corp. et al., Englefield v. Englefield, Bailey v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Cardin v. Kentucky, Keller, Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services of Florida, et al. v. Mixon, a Minor, by Carter, et al., Wall et al. v. Hardwick et al.,
   ante, p. 897;

ante, p. 859;

ante, p. 864;

ante, p. 865;

ante, p. 958;

ante, p. 953;

ante, p. 868;

ante, p. 880; and

ante, p. 888. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 73-1744.
    No. 73-6805.
    No. 74-86.
    Foster v. American Machine & Foundry Co. et al., Gearin v. Weyerhaeuser Line, Leonard v. Strauss,
   ante, p. 833;

ante, p. 884; and

ante, p. 901. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


author: Mr. Justice Brennan,

text:
    December 16, 1974
    No. 74-225.
    No. 74-226.
    Marshall et al. v. Ohio; and Kensinger v. Ohio.
   Appeals from Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton County. Stays (Nos. A-1282 and A-1283) heretofore granted on July 9, 1974, by Mr. Justice Stewart are vacated. Appeals dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regulation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 508-514 (1957) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 42-47 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 70-73 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting), would note probable jurisdiction and summarily reverse the judgments.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

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

dissenting.

Appellants were convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio, of possession of allegedly obscene materials with intent to distribute the materials in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2905.35 (Supp. 1973), which provided in pertinent part at the time of the alleged offense as follows:

“No person, with knowledge of the content and character of the obscene material or performance involved, shall make, manufacture, write, draw, print, reproduce, or publish any obscene material, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that such material will be sold, distributed, circulated, or disseminated; or sell, lend, give away, distribute, circulate, disseminate, exhibit, or advertise any obscene material; or write, direct, produce, present, advertise, or participate in an obscene performance; or possess or have in his control any obscene material with intent to violate this section . , .

As used in § 2905.35,

“(A) Any material or performance is ‘obscene’ if, when considered as a whole and judged with reference to ordinary adults, any of the following apply:
“(1) Its dominant appeal is to prurient interest;
“(2) Its dominant tendency is to arouse lust by displaying or depicting nudity, sexual excitement, or sexual conduct in a way which tends to represent human beings as mere objects of sexual appetite;
“(3) Its dominant tendency is to arouse lust by displaying or depicting bestiality or extreme or bizarre violence, cruelty, or brutality;
“(4) It contains a series of displays or descriptions of nudity, sexual excitement, sexual conduct, bestiality, extreme or bizarre violence, cruelty, or brutality, or human bodily functions of elimination, the cumulative effect of which is a dominant tendency to appeal to prurient interest, when the appeal to such interest is primarily for its own sake or for commercial exploitation, rather than for a genuine scientific, educational, sociological, moral, or artistic purpose.” § 2905.34.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of. Hamilton County affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the appeals.

It is my view that “at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to uncon-senting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the State and Federal Governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually: oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly ‘obscene’ contents.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 113 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). It is clear that, tested by that constitutional standard, § 2905.35, as it incorporated the definition of “obscene” of § 2905.34, was constitutionally overbroad and therefore invalid on its face. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 47 (1973), I would therefore note probable jurisdiction and, since the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Hamilton County was rendered after Miller, reverse. In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the other questions presented in addition to those already treated merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 494 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

Further, it does not appear from the petition and response that the obscenity of the disputed materials was adjudged by applying local community standards. Based on my dissent in Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 141 (1974), I believe that, consistent with the Due Process Clause, each appellant must be given an opportunity to have his case decided upon, and to introduce evidence relevant to, the legal standard upon which his conviction has ultimately come to depend. Thus, even on its own terms, the Court should vacate the judgments below and remand for a determination whether appellants should be afforded new trials under local community standards.

       Although four of us would note probable jurisdiction and reverse the judgments; the Justices who join this opinion do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.


text:
    No. 74-474.
    Conklin v. California.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Cal. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 74-284.
    District of Columbia v. Walters et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. D. C. dismissed for want of properly presented federal question. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 74-478.
    Garis v. Compania Maritima San Basilio, S. A., et al.
   Appeal from App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st 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. 74-5376.
    Gargallo v. Gargallo.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5403.
    Martinolich v. Pennsylvania.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-499.
    Fitzgerald et al. v. DiGrazia et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Mo. Judgment vacated and case remanded for entry of a fresh judgment or decree from which a timely appeal may be taken to the United States Court of Appeals. Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, ante, p. 90.


text:
    No. 73-1739.
    No. 74-158.
    No. 74-159.

    Sandquist v. California. Kuhns et al. v. California; and Kuhns et al. v. California.
   App. Dept., Super Ct. Cal., County of Los Angeles;

App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Santa Cruz. Petitioners did not seek to have the Appellate Department certify their cases to the Court of Appeal pursuant to California Penal Code § 1471 and California Rules of Court 62 and 63. Accordingly, the decisions of the Appellate Department are not “[f]inal judgments . . . rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had . . . ,” 28 U. S. C. § 1257, and the petitions for writs of certiorari to their respective courts are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Banks v. California, 395 U. S. 708 (1969).


text:
    No. A-430.
    Beasley v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for reduction of bail pending appeal, presented to Mr. Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 73-1256.
    Connell Construction Co., Inc. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 100, United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certi-orari granted, 416 U. S. 981.] Motion of petitioner for leave to file a brief after argument granted.


text:
    No. 73-6739.
    Costarelli v. Massachusetts.
   Appeal from Municipal Ct. of Boston. [Probable jurisdiction postponed, ante, p. 893.] Motion of appellant for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Robert W. Hagopian, Esquire, of Wrentham, Mass., be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for appellant in this case.


text:
    No. 74-157.
    United Housing Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Forman et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion to defer consideration of petition for writ of certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 74-5522.
    Dolphus v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 74-5374.
    No. 74-5481.
    Monteer v. Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and Dollar v. California et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 74-201.
    City of Richmond, Virginia v. United States et al.
   Appeal from D. C. D. C. Motion of appellee Holt for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.

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


text:
    No. 74-22.
    Ivan Allen Co. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 74-415.
    Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 74-450.
    Butterfield, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, et al. v. Robertson et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 74-452.
    Twentieth Century Music Corp. et al. v. Aiken.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 74-466.
    Brennan, Secretary of Labor v. Bachowski et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 74-121.
    Phelps, Receiver in Bankruptcy v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1, 2, and 3 presented by the petition which read as follows:

1. “Whether the Court of Appeals incorrectly granted to the United States a priority based upon the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 for taxes in violation of and contrary to the priorities for payment of claims established by the Bankruptcy Act?”

2. “Whether the Court of Appeals incorrectly held that service of a Notice of Levy upon an assignee for the benefit of creditors subsequent to the assignment reduced the bankrupt’s property then held by the assignee to the constructive possession of the United States?”

3. “Whether the Court of Appeals incorrectly determined that the Bankruptcy Court lacked summary jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy before it without the consent of the United States?”


text:
    No. 74-389.
    No. 74-428.
    Albemarle Paper Co. et al. v. Moody et al.; and Halifax Local No. 425, United Papermakers & Paperworkers, AFL-CIO v. Moody et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.

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

Reported below: 474 F. 2d 134.


text:
    No. 73-7058.
    Thomas v. United States Board of Parole et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7093.
    Miller v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7094.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-127.
    Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission et al. v. Simon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-145.
    Brainerd v. Beal et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-191.
    Markham et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-223.
    Hasty v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-258.
    Young et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-279.
    Mirelez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-280.
    Bramble v. Saxbe, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-281.
    Vowteras et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-340.
    Malone v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-345.
    R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. v. American President Lines, Ltd., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-368.
    Roberts et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-429.
    Sigma Systems Corp. et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-468.
    Webster v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-473.
    Steamship Mutual Underwriting Assn., Ltd. v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-475.
    Universal Builders, Inc., et al. v. Clark et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-488.
    No. 74-490.
    Hartley et al. v. City of Chattanooga et al.; and Hudson et al. v. City of Chattanooga et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 512 S.W. 2d 555.


text:
    No. 74-500.
    Remsco Associates, Inc. v. Beaver Falls Municipal Authority.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 74-507.
    Gonzalez et al. v. International Longshoremen’s Association, Local No. 1581, AFL-CIO.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-509.
    Monty v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-529.
    Johnson v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County; Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5024.
    Doran v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Wayne County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5030.
    Gibson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5076.
    Allison v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5108.
    Felts v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5235.
    Fields v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5267.
    Mundt v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5306.
    Sturgeon v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5331.
    Dilworth v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5333.
    Pietras v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5341.
    Resnick v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5351.
    Duran v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5359.
    Fonseca v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5360.
    Pecina v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5365.
    Wentz et al. v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5370.
    Gong v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5406.
    Callahan v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5442.
    Moynier v. Valuch et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5456.
    Conner v. DeRamus, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5457.
    Agur v. Wilson, Governor of New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5462.
    Gibson v. Henderson, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5463.
    Miller v. Maryland.
   Crim. Ct. Baltimore City, Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5464.
    Bennett v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5467.
    Raymond v. Johnson, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5471.
    Sedillo, aka Baylors v. New Mexico.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5474.
    Arnold v. Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5476.
    Wilson v. Clanon, Prison Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5477.
    Paquette v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5480.
    Gutierrez v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74—5484.
    Alexander v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5494.
    Nevarez v. Arizona.
   Super. Ct. Ariz., Pima County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5496.
    Bartlett v. Toledo Bar Assn.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5498.
    Carter v. Hardy.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5526.
    Kennedy et al. v. Meacham, Warden, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5559.
    Santana v. United States District Court.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2008.
    Ayre v. Maryland.
   Crim. Ct. Baltimore City, Md. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regulation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 508-514 (1957) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 42-47 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 70-73 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting), would grant certiorari and summarily reverse the judgment.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

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

dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City of possession of obscene materials with intent to sell in violation of Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 418 (1971). Section 418 provides in pertinent part as follows: “Every person who . . . has in his possession with intent to distribute . . . any obscene matter is guilty of a misdemeanor.” The Maryland courts have defined the term “obscene” by adopting the test set forth in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973). See Ebert v. Maryland State Bd. of Censors, 19 Md. App. 300, 313 A. 2d 536 (1973). The Maryland Court of Special Appeals and the Maryland Court of Appeals denied certiorari.

It is my view that “at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the State and Federal Governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly 'obscene’ contents.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 113 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). It is clear that, tested by that constitutional standard, § 418 of the Maryland Code is constitutionally overbroad and therefore invalid on its face. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, supra, at 47, I would therefore grant certiorari, and, since the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals was rendered after Miller, reverse. In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the other questions presented merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 494 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

      Although four of us would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment, the Justices who join this opinion do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.


text:
    No. 73-6535.
    Wells v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

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

dissenting.

On April 28, 1967, petitioner and two companions allegedly robbed the Liberty Loan Corporation office in St. Louis of $200. During the robbery, one of petitioner’s confederates fired a shot which killed a bank employee. Petitioner was charged in separate indictments with first-degree murder and first-degree robbery by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon. At the time, the death penalty was available under Missouri law for each of these crimes, with the decision whether it should be imposed committed to jury discretion. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 559.030, 560.135 (1959).

Under then-applicable Missouri criminal procedure rules, it was not permissible to join in one indictment or at one trial robbery and murder charges. See Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 24.04;'Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 545.120, 545.130 (1959). Petitioner was tried first on the murder charge. Missouri punishes as first-degree murder “every homicide which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any arson, rape, robbery, burglary or mayhem.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.010 (1969). While the murder indictment alleged that petitioner murdered the victim “feloniously, willfully, and premeditately, deliberately, on purpose and of . . . malice aforethought,” petitioner claims, and the Supreme Court of Missouri, as we read its opinion, found, that the murder case was tried to the jury on a felony-murder theory, with proof of the elements of the robbery supplying the requisite mens rea for murder. Missouri permits trial on a felony-murder theory even though the indictment does not allege the felony but alleges directly the mens rea for first-degree murder. State v. Conway, 351 Mo. 126, 171 S. W. 2d 677 (1943).

Petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder by the jury, which assessed his punishment as life imprisonment. At the sentencing hearing before the trial judge, petitioner waived his right to appeal the murder conviction and was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. At the same hearing, he withdrew his not-guilty plea to the robbery charge and entered a guilty plea. The prosecuting attorney then recommended a concurrent life sentence on the robbery conviction, and the judge imposed the recommended sentence.

In 1970, petitioner sought state post-conviction remedies to vacate both the waiver of appeal from the murder conviction and the guilty plea to the robbery charge. After hearing, the trial judge held that, although both the waiver of appeal and the guilty plea were motivated by fear that the death penalty might be imposed if petitioner stood trial for robbery, the waiver and plea were voluntary. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed. 504 S. W. 2d 96 (1974).

The Supreme Court of Missouri also rejected petitioner’s contention that the prosecution for robbery after conviction for murder on a felony-murder theory violated the constitutional protection from double jeopardy. Id., at 97, relying on State v. Moore, 326 Mo. 1199, 33 S. W. 2d 905 (1930). In my view this holding was in error.

I

The two charges leveled against petitioner clearly arose out of the same criminal transaction or episode, yet they were tried separately. In that circumstance, we should grant the petition for certiorari and reverse the robbery conviction. I adhere to the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), requires the joinder at one trial, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, of “all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). See Tijerina v. New Mexico, 417 U. S. 956 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Ciuzio v. United States, 416 U. S. 995 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Moton v. Swenson, 417 U. S. 957 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Harris v. Washington, 404 U. S. 55, 57 (1971) (concurring statement) ; Waller v. Florida, 397 U. S. 387, 395 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). See also People v. White, 390 Mich. 245, 212 N. W. 2d 222 (1973); State v. Brown, 262 Ore. 442, 497 P. 2d 1191 (1972); Commonwealth v. Campana, 452 Pa. 233, 304 A. 2d 432 (1973), vacated and remanded, 414 U. S. 808 (1973), on remand, 455 Pa. 622, 314 A. 2d 854 (1974).

Guilty pleas can be vacated on collateral attack on double jeopardy grounds, even when the double jeopardy claim was not raised before conviction. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S. 21, 31 (1974). Further, there is no significance in the fact that Missouri law would not have permitted joinder of the two offenses here. If it is state law rather than prosecutorial abuse which results in two trials for the same offense, the “remedy lies in changing [Missouri’s] criminal procedure, not in denying petitioner the constitutional protection to which he is entitled. Petitioner was tried twice for the same offense, and his conviction should be reversed.” Duncan v. Tennessee, 405 U. S. 127, 133 (1972) (Brennan, J., dissenting). Cf. Turner v. Arkansas, 407 U. S. 366 (1972). n

Even on the “same evidence” theory, never adopted by this Court, see Ashe v. Swenson, supra, at 452-453; Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187, 197-198 (1959) (separate opinion), it is my view that the robbery conviction here violated the double jeopardy protection. The State claims that, since conviction for robbery would require proof that another was deprived of property against his will, it would involve evidence not pertinent to the murder conviction. Yet, it appears from those portions of the record now available to us that the murder conviction was premised upon proof of the completed robbery. We have indicated that a person cannot be tried for a greater offense which includes all the elements already established by evidence in a trial on a lesser offense. Waller v. Florida, supra. There is also some indication that the same-evidence rule operates in the other direction, to preclude retrial on a lesser offense when all of its elements have been established by evidence in a trial on a greater offense. See In re Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176, 187-190 (1889); Grafton v. United States, 206 U. S. 333, 352 (1907). This case illustrates graphically why this should be so. The prosecution threatened to retry essentially the same case in pursuit of a greater sentence, and it used the leverage of that threatened prosecution to induce the waiver of the right to appeal the murder conviction.

      In fact, Missouri’s joinder rules have been changed since petitioner was tried. They now permit joinder of “[a]ll offenses which are based ... on two or more acts or transactions which constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.” Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 24.04, as amended Dec. 7,1970.


text:
    No. 74-55.
    Clay v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-213.
    Von Clemm et al. v. Banuelos, Treasurer of the United States, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-260.
    Tramunti v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-267.
    No. 74-5268.
    Charbonier et al. v. United States; and Burke et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.

Reported below: 495 F. 2d 1226.


text:
    No. 74-5178.
    Castleberry v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5240.
    Bryan v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5272.
    Hawkins v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas wquld grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-324.
    City of Dallas et al. v. Southwest Airlines Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Air Transport Association of America for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-332.
    Satterwhite v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
   C. A. 10th 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. 74-352.
    No. 74-5458.
    Meachum, Correctional Superintendent v. LaFrance; and LaFrance v. Meachum, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of respondent in No. 7A-352 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 499 F. 2d 29.


text:
    No. 74-458.
    New Jersey v. General Motors Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 74-463.
    Dann, Commissioner of Patents v. Honeywell, Inc.
   C. C. P. A. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari. The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Black-mun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 74-485.
    Michigan v. Davis et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Motions of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5027.
    Allen v. Rose, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U. S. 365 (1970).


text:
    No. 73-6800.
    No. 73-6809.
    Baxter v. United States, Falkner v. Blanton, Judge,
   ante, p. 964; and

ante, p. 977. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 73-6605.
    Folks v. United States,
   ante, p. 849. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    December 23, 1974
    No. 74-517.
    Mercer et al. v. Michigan State Board of Education et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. E. D. Mich.

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


text:
    No. 73-7014.
    Jones v. Florida.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of properly presented federal question.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

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

dissenting.

Thé Court dismisses this appeal for want of a properly presented federal question. That disposition is utterly indefensible on the record of this case.

Appellant was arrested for violating Fla. Stat. § 847.05 (Supp. 1974-1975), which provides:

“Any person who shall publicly use or utter any indecent or obscene language shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree_”

After the arrest, appellant was searched and marihuana was found in his possession. Appellant was then charged with using indecent or obscene language, resisting arrest, and possession of marihuana. Prior to trial, he moved to dismiss the information on the ground that on its face Fla. Stat. § 847.05 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and therefore the arrest pursuant to § 847.05 was unlawful and the ensuing search and seizure of the marihuana invalid. The motion was denied. At trial by jury, the marihuana was admitted in evidence and appellant was convicted solely on the charge of possession of marihuana. The conviction was appealed to the Florida Supreme Court pursuant to Art. 5, § 3 (b) (1), of the Florida Constitution, which directs the Florida Supreme Court to “hear appeals . . . from orders of trial courts . . . passing on the validity of a state statute ....” The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of § 847.05, finding that the statutory language itself was “sufficient to convey to a person of common understanding its prohibition.” 293 So. 2d 33, 34 (1974). In view of that holding, the Florida Supreme Court found it unnecessary to decide whethér the marihuana conviction could stand if § 847.05 were unconstitutional and the initial arrest therefore unlawful.

Section 847.05 punishes only spoken words and, as construed by the Florida Supreme Court, is facially unconstitutional because it is not limited in application “to punish only unprotected speech” but is “susceptible of application to protected expression.” Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 522 (1972). See also Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130, 134 (1974); Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 20 (1971). In that circumstance, it is irrelevant that the statute might constitutionally reach appellant’s conduct, for ‘[although a statute may be neither vague, overbroad, nor otherwise invalid as applied to the conduct charged against a particular defendant, he is permitted to raise its vagueness or unconstitutional over-breadth as applied to others. And if the law is found deficient in one of these respects, it may not be applied to him either, until and unless a satisfactory limiting construction is placed on the statute. The statute, in effect, is stricken down on its face. . . Gooding v. Wilson, supra, at 521.

Gooding obviously compels reversal of the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court. The Court, however, dismisses this appeal for want of a properly presented federal question. But a dismissal on that ground would be appropriate only if the federal claim had not been raised in a proper and timely manner in the state courts. See, e. g., Bailey v. Anderson, 326 U. S. 203, 206-207 (1945) ; Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 581-585 (1969). That cannot possibly be said of this case. The unconstitutionality of § 847.05 was the basic claim asserted by appellant and he urged it at every level in the state proceedings. And even were there doubt of this, and there can be none on this record, our jurisdiction still obtains since the Florida Supreme Court’s sole ground of decision was based upon resolution of the federal question. “There can be no question as to the proper presentation of a federal claim when the highest state court passes on it.” Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, 436 (1959).

Certainly it cannot be said that there is lack of a properly presented federal question because appellant was convicted not for violating § 847.05 but on the marihuana charge. His claim is that the marihuana seized from him and admitted in evidence against him was “fruit of the poisonous tree” because his initial arrest was pursuant to the unconstitutional § 847.05. It may be that on remand his “fruits” claim will be rejected and the marihuana conviction reinstated. But the Florida Supreme Court did not speak to that question in light of its determination, based on holding § 847.05 constitutional, that the initial arrest was valid. Appellant has properly presented the federal question decided by the Florida Supreme Court and our plain duty is to reverse that court and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.


text:
    No. 74-69.
    Padilla v. Lavine, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York, et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 74-434.
    Colorado Civil Rights Commission ex rel. McAllister v. Colorado et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Colo, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 74-5486.
    Brimm v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., dismissed for • want of substantia! federal question.


text:
    No. 74-235.
    Seidenfaden et al. v. City of Louisville et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ky. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, cer-tiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas would postpone further consideration of question of jurisdiction to hearing of case on the merits.


text:
    No. 73-711.
    Cryan, Sheriff, et al. v. Hamar Theatres, Inc., et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. J. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 416 U. S. 954.] Judgment vacated and case remanded to determine whether the cause is moot in light of State v. DeSantis, 65 N. J. 462, 323 A. 2d 489 (1974).


text:
    No. 74-67.
    Dickson v. Ford, President of the United States, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Tex. This is an appeal, assertedly brought under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, from a three-judge court order dismissing a complaint which sought to enjoin a federal statute upon the ground of its unconstitutionality, 28 U. S. C. § 2282. The court found the case “non-justiciable” because the appellant lacked standing to sue and because the case involved a “political question.” Where a three-judge court dismisses a complaint as being non justiciable, appeal does not lie to this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1253. Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, ante, p. 90. Accordingly, the order is vacated and case remanded so that a fresh order may be entered from which a timely appeal may be taken to the United States Court of Appeals. 28 U. S. C. § 1291.


text:
    No. 74-437.
    North v. Russell et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ky. Upon representation of the Attorney General of Kentucky set forth in his motion to dismiss or affirm filed in this Court on November 29, 1974, judgment is vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of the position presently asserted by the Commonwealth.


text:
    No. A-446 (74-759).
    Moore v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Application for release pending disposition of petition for writ of certiorari, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-467 (74-668).
    Selikoff v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Application for stay of incarceration, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-498.
    Gabriel v. United States et al.
   D. C. N. J. Application for stay, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-506.
    Gibbs et al. v. Howell et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Application for stay of execution of judgment upon remittitur, presented to Mr. Justice Rehnquist, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-514.
    Boyd v. Pennsylvania State Board of Osteopathic Examiners.
   Pa. Commw. Ct. Application for stay of suspension of license to practice pending timely filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari, presented to Mr. Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 74-5588.
    No. 74-5621.
    Tucker v. Bowers, United States Attorney, et al.; and Crane v. Stone, Correctional Superintendent, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 73-6650.
    Brown v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 894.] Motion of John Thomas Moran, Jr., Esquire, to permit Robert P. Isaac-son, Esquire, to present oral argument pro hac vice on behalf of petitioner granted.


text:
    No. A-511.
    Miller v. California.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Orange. Application for bail pending appeal, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 35,
    Orig.
    United States v. Maine et al.
   Motion of Special Committee on Tidelands of National Association of Attorneys General for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 73-1708.
    Burns, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of Iowa, et al. v. Alcala et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, cmie, p.823.] Motion of Pacific Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 73-1765.
    Meek et al. v. Pittenger, Secretary of Education, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Pa. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 822.] Joint motion for additional time for oral argument granted, and a total of one and one-half hours allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 73-1808.
    No. 74-75.
    Laing v. United States et al. United States et al. v. Hall.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 824]; and

C. A. 6th ' Cir. [ Certiorari granted, ante, p. 824.] Motion to consolidate for oral argument granted.


text:
    No. 73-1933.
    United States v. Citizens & Southern National Bank et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ga. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 893.] Motion of Independent Bankers Association of Georgia, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 74-456.
    Hill, Attorney General of Texas, et al. v. Printing Industries of the Gulf Coast et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Tex. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 74-5116.
    Murphy v. Florida.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certi-orari granted.


text:
    No. 73-1978.
    No. 74-5063.
    No. 74-5073.
    No. 74-5086.
    Mitzner et al. v. United States; Heck v. United States; Moths v. United States; and Ross v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 499 F. 2d 778.


text:
    No. 73-7076.
    Olson v. Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certi-orari denied.


text:
    No. 74-202.
    DiMattina, aka Zampitella v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-211.
    Tollett v. Laman et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-229.
    Pommerening et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-348.
    Odland v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-354.
    No. 74-5109.
    Verive v. United States; and Schulman v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 500 F. 2d 1404.


text:
    No. 74-373.
    Koniecki et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-382.
    United States v. Finley Coal Co. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-386.
    Idaho Tax Commission v. Mahoney.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-399.
    Mayse et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-405.
    Warren v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-410.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-432.
    Community Bank et al. v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-443.
    Liberty Loan Corp. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-449.
    Greenberg v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-460.
    Highway & Local Motor Freight Drivers Local No. 701, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Suburban Transit Corp. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-483.
    No. 74-541.
    O’Callaghan et al. v. Sheldon et al.; and Sheldon et al. v. O’Callaghan et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 497 F. 2d 1276.


text:
    No. 74-502.
    Smart v. Jones et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-505.
    Baldwin et al. v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-527.
    Children’s Rehabilitation Center, Inc. v. Service Employees International Union, Local No. 227, AFL-CIO.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-531.
    Patton et al., Trustees v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 74-553.
    Goodyear v. Gates Rubber Co.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5052.
    McManus v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5118.
    Hill v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5123.
    Nunez-Villalobos v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5157.
    Meyers v. Venable et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-343.
    Agnew v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5131.
    Apodaca v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5134.
    Fico v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5185.
    Doe v. Middendorf, Secretary of the Navy.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5202.
    Rush et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5241.
    Gillikin v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5279.
    Klein v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5325.
    Van Drunen v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5407.
    Massengale v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5509.
    Aiken v. Hopper, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5513.
    Rich v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5514.
    Clouston v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5520.
    Bryant v. Nelson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5525.
    Gaito v. Matson.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5540.
    Bush v. Craig et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5549.
    Hawkins v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1702.
    Lowder v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-2058.
    Pennsylvania v. O’Shea.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-241.
    Hennigan et ux. v. Placid Oil Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-370.
    Goodrich v. South Dakota.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-523.
    Frasier v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certi-orari.


text:
    No. 74-5017.
    Sedillo v. New Mexico.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-524.
    Thistlethwaite v. City of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-580.
    Gooden, a minor, by Gooden, et al. v. Mississippi State University et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5016.
    Ayers v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certi-orari.


text:
    No. 74-5074.
    Estrada v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5427.
    Werts v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5506.
    Carter v. Cook.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant cer-tiorari.


text:
    No. 74-313.
    Buckley et al. v. American Federation of Television & Radio Artists.
   C. A. 2d Cir.; and


text:
    No. 74-314.
    Lewis v. American Federation of Television & Radio Artists.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certio-rari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom The Chief Justice joins,

dissenting.

These cases, as I view them, present the issue of whether a person suffers an infringement of his First Amendment rights when he is compelled to pay union dues (or their equivalent) as a precondition to expressing his ideas through a public broadcasting medium.

In Railway Employes’ Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225 (1956), a union-shop agreement authorized under the Railway Labor Act was challenged under the First and Fifth Amendments. While holding on the merits that a union-shop requirement does not violate those Amendments, we held that the Railway Labor Act provision governing union-shop agreements constituted sufficient governmental action to require consideration of the constitutional issues: “[T]he federal statute is the source of the power and authority by which any private rights are lost or sacrificed.” 351 U. S., at 232. We left open the possibility that a membership or dues requirement might, in some circumstances, be imposed in contravention of the First Amendment, though no such problem was presented on the record in that case.

In Hanson, governmental action was based on the Railway Labor Act, which provided that state “right to work” laws were superseded and that a union-shop agreement was permissible notwithstanding such laws. 351 U. S., at 231-232. Thus that federal Act placed “the imprimatur of the federal law” upon union-shop agreements. The Taft-Hartley Act (in contrast) authorizes union-shop agreements only in the absence of contrary state law. 61 Stat. 151, 29 U. S. C. § 164 (b). Yet there still is a substantial argument in favor of a holding that a union-shop agreement under the NLRA bears the imprimatur of federal law.

The fact that § 8 (a) (3) is phrased in permissive rather than mandatory terms would not, in and of itself, prevent a finding of governmental action. The Federal Government has undertaken extensive regulation of the field of labor-management relations, and by its approval and enforcement of union-shop agreements, may be said to “encourage” and foster such agreements. Linscott v. Millers Falls Co., 440 F. 2d 14 (CA1 1971); cf. Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U. S. 369 (1967).

It is significant that congressional permissiveness toward union-shop agreements is coupled with the NLRA’s “exclusivity” principle, whereby a majority vote of the employees in a particular category is sufficient to designate an exclusive bargaining representative whose actions bind majority and minority alike. When Congress authorizes an employer and a union to enter into union-shop agreements and makes such agreements binding and enforceable over the dissents of a minority of employees or union members, it has cast the weight of the Federal Government behind the agreements just as surely as if it had imposed them by statute.

There is a substantial question whether the union-dues requirement imposed upon these petitioners should be characterized as a prior restraint or inhibition upon their free-speech rights. In some respects, the requirement to pay dues under compulsion can be viewed as the functional equivalent of a “license” to speak. In several related decisions, we have left open the possibility that First Amendment assoeiational freedoms, would be infringed by a requirement that a union member subject to a union-shop agreement pay dues to'support union political activities with which he disagrees. Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740 (1961); Railway Employes’ Dept v. Hanson, supra. Cf. Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U. S. 820 (1961). We held in Street that the Railway Labor Act should be construed to deny unions the power to compel a union member to pay dues in support of union political causes of which he disapproves; we indicated that some suitable formula of apportionment could be worked out, so that the union member would bear his share of the cost of collective-bargaining activities from which he benefited, but would not be forced to contribute to political activities if he did not wish to do so. Whether a similar accommodation could be worked out in the present case, I do not know. Our cases dealing with flat license fees or registration requirements, such as Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516 (1945), and Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105 (1943), tend to suggest that even a minimal payment designed solely to cover administrative costs may be impermissible in a First Amendment context. There remains a question of whether an accommodation respecting dues could be worked out in the present case. Whatever the outcome, I believe that the issues are sufficiently substantial to call for plenary consideration.

       I agree with the respective Courts of Appeals that issues concerning union disciplinary sanctions (or threats of such sanctions) are not properly before us.

       49 Stat. 452, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (a)(3).


text:
    No. 74-498.
    Research Corp. v. Nasco Industries, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 74-501.
    Wyeth Laboratories, a Division of American Home Products Corp. v. Reyes.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motions of American Academy of Pediatrics and Conference of State and Territorial Epidemiologists for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Motion of American Medical Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-546.
    Ditter, U. S. District Judge v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of American Newspaper Publishers Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5527.
    Bridges v. Tennessee.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5532.
    Bolden v. Cowan, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-528.
    Generes v. Stich et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 73-1890.
    No. 74-97.
    No. 74-248.
    No. 74-5187.
    Thompson et ux. v. Clark, Treasurer of DuPage County, et al., Diamond et al. v. Bland, Sheriff, et al., United States Gypsum Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Smith v. California,
   ante, p. 988;

ante, p. 885;

ante, p. 998; and

ante,' p. 988. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 73-6732.
    Sloan v. Nixon, President of the United States, et al.,
   ante, p. 958. Petition for rehearing denied. See this Court’s Rule 58.


text:
    December 30, 1974
    No. 74-5565.
    Estevez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 60.


text:
    January 9, 1975
    No. 73-1943.
    Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. Kerr-McGee Corp. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 60.


author: Mr. Justice White,

text:
    January 13, 1975

    No. 74-380.
    Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners et al. v. Rosen.

       Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of cases in which orders hereinafter reported were announced on this date.

   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. E. D. La.

Mr. Justice White,

with whom Mr. Justice Rehnquist joins,

concurring.

Under the compulsion of Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 (1973), which in my view were erroneously decided, I join the affirmance.


text:
    No. 74-402.
    Rastetter et al. v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Ariz.


text:
    No. 74-5136.
    Young et al. v. Cobb, Chief, Bureau of Financial Responsibility, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. Fla.


text:
    No. 73-2045.
    American Plant Food Corp. v. Texas.
   Appeal from Ct. Crim. App. Tex. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 74-253.
    Sobottka v. Brown, Registrar of Voters.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Va. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 74-413.
    Cerezo v. Buso et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. P. R. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 74-5425.
    Ruderer v. Wood et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Ill. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 74-5571.
    Ray et al. v. Hedgewald et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Ky. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 74-5567.
    Alers v. Municipality of San Juan.
   Appeal from C. A. 1st Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5577.
    Hurd v. Hurd.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5583.
    Turner v. California.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-83.
    Pelliccioni v. Schuyler Packing Co. et al.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Kelley v. Southern Pacific Co., ante, p. 318.


text:
    No. 74-5352.
    Ackerson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Upon representation of the Solicitor General set forth in his brief for the United States filed December 19, 1974, judgment vacated and case remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to permit the Government to dismiss the charges against petitioner.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissent.


text:
    No. A-285.
    Wohlgemuth v. Planned Parenthood Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Application to vacate preliminary injunction, presented to Mr. Justice Rehnquist, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-445.
    Parker v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for continuance of bail pending timely filing of petition for writ of certiorari, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-501.
    Howard v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for bail pending appeal, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-518.
    McIntosh v. Woodward, Acting Director, United States Board of Parole, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for bail pending appeal, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-547 (74-5678).
    Liddy v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Application for bail, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-553.
    No. A-566.
    National League of Cities, Inc., et al. v. Brennan, Secretary of Labor; and California et al. v. Brennan, Secretary of Labor.
   D. C. D. C. Stay order heretofore granted by The Chief Justice on December 31, 1974, is hereby continued on condition that appellants file their jurisdictional statements on or before January 17, 1975. Appellee may file a reply to the jurisdictional statements on or before 12 p. m., January 23, 1975. Neither the jurisdictional statements nor the replies need be initially printed.


text:
    No. A-563.
    Huntsville Board of Education et al. v. Hereford et al.
   Application for recall and stay of mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, presented to Mr. Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-25.
    In re Disbarment of Leach.
   It is ordered that Arthur Dale Leach, of Silver Spring, Md., 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-26.
    In re Disbarment of Ketcham.
   It is ordered that Frank S. Ketcham, of Potomac, Md., 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-28.
    In re Disbarment of Buttles.
   It having been reported to this Court that Robert S. Buttles, of New York, N. Y., has been suspended from the practice of law in all of the courts of the State of New York, and this Court by order of November 18, 1974 [ante, p. 1016], having suspended the said Robert S. Buttles from the practice of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred;

And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued and served upon respondent, and that a response has been filed;

It is ordered that the said Robert S. Buttles be, and he is hereby, disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.


text:
    No. D-31.
    In re Disbarment of Ross.
   It is ordered that John A. Ross, Jr., of New York, N. Y., 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-32.
    In re Disbarment of Germaise.
   It is ordered that Irwin L. Germaise, of New York, N. Y., 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. 35,
    Orig.
    United States v. Maine et al.
   Motion of Associated Gas Distributors for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. [For earlier orders herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 1087.]


text:
    No. 73-1708.
    Burns, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of Iowa, et al. v. Alcala et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 823.] Motion of American Association for Maternal & Child Health et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Motion of the Attorney General of Florida for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 73-1908.
    Cort et al. v. Ash.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 992.] Motion of Chamber of Commerce of the United States for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 73-2047.
    Buck et al. v. Impeach Nixon Committee et al.,
   ante, p. 891. Motion of respondents to retax costs denied.


text:
    No. 73-1765.
    Meek et al. v. Pittenger, Secretary of Education, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Pa. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 822.] Motion of National Audio-Visual Assn., Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 73-1923.
    Eastland et al. v. United States Servicemen’s Fund et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 823.] Motion of respondents for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 73-2060.
    Austin et al. v. New Hampshire et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. H. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 822.] Motion of appellees to permit Charles G. Cleaveland, Esquire, to present oral argument ;pro hue wee granted. Motions of Attorney General of Vermont and Attorney General of New Jersey for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae denied.


text:
    No. 74-70.
    Goldfarb et ux. v. Virginia State Bar et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 963.] Motions of the Bar of the City of New York and the District of Columbia Bar for leave to file briefs as amici curiae denied.

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


text:
    No. 74-5595.
    Ratcliff v. Texas et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-453.
    Van Lake, Acting Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York, et al. v. Hurley et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y. and D. C. E. D. N. Y. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 1045]; and


text:
    No. 74-5054.
    Taylor et al. v. Lavine, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1046.] Motion to consolidate for oral argument granted.


text:
    No. 74-304.
    Gordon v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1018.] Motion of Retirement Board of the Teachers’ Retirement System of the City of New York for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 74-5295.
    No. 74-5502.
    No. 74-5531.
    Parmley v. Alabama et al.; Farries v. United States District Court; and Draughon v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 74-5451.
    Magee v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition, and/or certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1689.
    United States v. American Building Maintenance Industries.
   Appeal from D. C. C. D. Cal. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 74-548.
    United States v. Tax Commission of Mississippi et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Miss. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 74-204.
    Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Eldridge.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-1433.
    Hurt v. Britton, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7112.
    Valdez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-49.
    Carlson et al. v. Carlson.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-57.
    Dykman v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-94.
    Scranton Construction Co., Inc., et al. v. Litton Industries Leasing Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-105.
    Golden Eagle, aka Austine v. Johnson, Deputy Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-128.
    No. 74-609.
    Adolph Coors Co. v. Federal Trade Commission; and Federal Trade Commission v. Adolph Coors Co.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-274.
    Parness et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-276.
    National Roofing Contractors Assn, et al. v. Brennan, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-287.
    Gables by the Sea, Inc. v. Lee et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.