text:
    No. 81-2.
    Moran v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-rari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 81-6.
    Ford Motor Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-7.
    National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians, AFL-CIO, et al. v. WJLA, Inc.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-8.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-12.
    Fischer v. Dakopolos.
   Ct. App. Mo., Western Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-15.
    154 East Park Avenue Corp. et al. v. City of Long Beach et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-21.
    Mickle, Mayor of Columbus, et al. v. Cross Country Corp., dba Cross Country Plaza Shopping Center.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-18.
    Woolridge v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-22.
    Neidinger v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-25.
    One 1976 Rolls Royce Silver Shadow, Serial No. LRE 25888 v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-26.
    Markot et al. v. Hausner et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-27.
    Luce v. Govan.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 1st Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-28.
    Gordon et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-30.
    Huff v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-34.
    Dornier, GmbH, et al. v. Elliott et al.
   Super. Ct. Alaska, 4th Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-36.
    Carbone et al. v. Meserve et al., Trustees.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-37.
    Minarik v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-40.
    Proctor v. Kramer.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-41.
    Hagans v. Watt, Secretary of the Interior.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-42.
    Gregg v. Rahm.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-46.
    Rives v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-47.
    Contreras De Avila et al. v. Smith, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-54.
    Heath v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-56.
    Blake et al. v. Peters et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-57.
    Katz v. Bank of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-59.
    Bangert et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-62.
    Hunt v. Bittman et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-63.
    Bob Maxfield, Inc., dba Bob Maxfield American, et al. v. American Motors Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-65.
    Beeler v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-66.
    Foremost Insurance Co. v. Progress Marine, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-70.
    Whirlpool Corp. v. Spagnuolo.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-67.
    Altman et al. v. Health and Hospitals Governing Commission of Cook County.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-73.
    Vinyl Products Manufacturing, Inc., et al. v. Calco-Hawaiian Import-Export Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-74.
    Cotton v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-75.
    Gonzales-Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-76.
    Armistead v. California State Personnel Board et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-77.
    Cleveland v. Cleveland, Executor.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-78.
    Felsen v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-88.
    Local 394, Laborers’ International Union of North America, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-90.
    Thibadeau v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-94.
    Rey v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-95.
    Attick v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-100.
    Rice v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-101.
    Lewis v. Cook County Department of Public Aid et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-102.
    Bay et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-103.
    Doff v. Brunswick Corp.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-104.
    Blanton et ux. v. General Electric Credit Corporation of Georgia.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-105.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-107.
    Fields v. Fields.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-108.
    Fedders Corp. et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-111.
    Arnao et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-115.
    Makah Indian Tribe v. Lower Elwha Tribe et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-116.
    Davis et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-118.
    Kemlon Products & Development Co. et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-121.
    Reed et al. v. Grissom.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-123.
    Winters v. Beck.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-124.
    Hill v. Hill.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-126.
    Marshall Field & Co. v. Paskuly.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-127.
    Getz v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-132.
    United Electric Corp. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-133.
    Wise v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-135.
    Arkansas v. Prue et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-136.
    Morales v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-138.
    Chandler Unified School District et al. v. Collins.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-140.
    No. 81-141.
    Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles et al. v. Barker et al.; and Rector, Warden, and Vestrymen of the Church of the Holy Apostles in Glendale, California, et al. v. Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 115 Cal. App. 3d 599, 171 Cal. Rptr. 541.


text:
    No. 81-145.
    Todd v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-146.
    Zang et al. v. United States.
   Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-147.
    McCutcheon v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-148.
    Martin v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-149.
    Cooper v. Wille, Sheriff.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-154.
    Donald B. Rice Tire Co., Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-156.
    Leitch et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-159.
    Hatheway v. Marsh, Secretary of the Army.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-161.
    Mangrum v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-162.
    McCrary et al. v. Poythress, Secretary of State of Georgia, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-163.
    No. 81-182.
    Lyon et al. v. California et al.; and Tahoe Shorezone Representation v. California et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 81-163, 29 Cal. 3d 210, 625 P. 2d 239; No. 81-182, 29 Cal. 3d 240, 625 P. 2d 256.


text:
    No. 81-168.
    Livingston v. Continental Airlines et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-169.
    Reynolds v. Georgia et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-170.
    No. 81-5128.
    Cora v. United States; and Grella v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-172.
    Perry v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-174.
    Perez et ux., Guardians v. Bahamas.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-175.
    Meyer v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-178.
    Bird v. Rothman et al.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-179.
    Hoffman v. Weisman, Celler, Spett, Modlin & Wertheimer.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-190.
    Uzzolino v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-197.
    Appalachian Power Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-205.
    International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union No. 111 et al. v. Douglas et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-208.
    Uptown People’s Community Health Services Board of Directors v. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-209.
    Clayton Manufacturing Corp. v. Moorer.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-214.
    Wakefield v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-216.
    Self Retention Programmers, Inc., et al. v. International Accident Facilities, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-223.
    Guarineri et ux. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-224.
    United Aircraft Corp. v. Bodine, dba Bodine Soundrive Co.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-233.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-245.
    Ableidinger et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-267.
    Solmitz, by Solmitz, Guardian Ad Litem v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-324.
    Fagan et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-339.
    Volkswagenwerk, A.G., et al. v. Seese et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-343.
    Civella et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-370.
    Langdon v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-391.
    LaGorga v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-394.
    DiGilio v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5003.
    Broughton v. Broughton.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5004.
    Ford v. Aldisert et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5005.
    Durham et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5006.
    No. 81-5201.
    Alonso v. United States; and Viera v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5007.
    Johnson v. Duckworth, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5008.
    Bernhart v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5010.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5011.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5012.
    Ali v. National Bank of Pakistan.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5015.
    Hayes v. Coffey.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5016.
    Bruton v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5018.
    Nugent et ux. v. Wise et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5020.
    Krawczyk v. Stubbins et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5022.
    Pope et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5024.
    Spector v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5025.
    Vicaretti v. Henderson, Correctional Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5027.
    Miller v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5031.
    Groff v. Township of Elizabeth, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
   Pa. Commw. Ct. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5033.
    McMillion v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5034.
    Morrell v. Louisiana State Bar Assn, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5040.
    Gullett, aka Woodring v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5041.
    Gonzales-Palma v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5042.
    Leon v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5045.
    Usher v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5049.
    Lay v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5051.
    In re McGean.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5053.
    Levy v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5054.
    Phillips v. Slaughter, Clerk, Fourth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5055.
    Quinones v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5057.
    Worrell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5059.
    Stewart v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5061.
    Pascu et al. v. Schuierer.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5063.
    Lusane v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5064.
    Johnson v. United States Secret Service.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5065.
    Dybel v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5067.
    Chaka v. Franzen et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5070.
    Rodriguez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5072.
    Lang et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5074.
    Roth v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5077.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5078.
    Burnside v. Wyrick, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5083.
    Wilson v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5084.
    Beazley v. State Bar of Georgia et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5087.
    Edwards v. Turner.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5085.
    Miller v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5088.
    Bradshaw v. Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5091.
    Furlow v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5092.
    Thomas v. Blackburn, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5093.
    Wojloh v. Grant et al.
   Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5096.
    Bejarano v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5098.
    Addicks v. Cupp, Penitentiary Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5100.
    Daniels v. Reed et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5102.
    No. 81-5108.
    No. 81-5115.
    Bailey v. United States; Williams v. United States; and Blackwell v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 649 F. 2d 967.


text:
    No. 81-5103.
    Ferguson v. Henderson, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5106.
    Ospina-Cardona v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5109.
    Rucker v. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5110.
    Morales v. New York.
   App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5116.
    Chandler v. Cochran et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5119.
    Jackson et al. v. Royal Business Machines et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5120.
    Myers v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5122.
    Tate v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5123.
    McFadden v. Benson, dba L. Z. Shell No. 2, et al.
   Ct. App Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5124.
    Doe v. Anker et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5126.
    Crawford v. Fenton, Prison Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5131.
    Jambois v. Morgan City Bank & Trust Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5133.
    Duncan v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5137.
    McFadden v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5141.
    Serpentfoot v. Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5142.
    Lindner v. Wyrick, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5144.
    DeHart v. Washington Post Co.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5146.
    Dobbins v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5149.
    Green v. Allen, Corrections Director, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5153.
    Ralston v. Smith, Reformatory Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5154.
    Scott v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5155.
    Yates et al. v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5159.
    Aylward v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5160.
    Flye v. Parratt, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5161.
    Caulton v. Hospital of the Good Samaritan.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5162.
    Scott v. Collins, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5163.
    Mercer v. Washington et al.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5165.
    Austin v. Henderson, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5167.
    Zatko v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5168.
    Zatko v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5170.
    Walker v. Graham, Governor of Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5172.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5173.
    Zatko v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5176.
    Quarterman v. Quarterman et al.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5179.
    Beachboard v. Columbia University.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5180.
    Hunt v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5183.
    Torres v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5185.
    D. B. v. Vermont.
   Sup. Ct. Vt. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5186.
    Salama v. Virginia et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5187.
    Alexander v. State Attorney for Baltimore City.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5190.
    No. 81-5200.
    Washington v. United States; and Watt v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 659 F. 2d 1084.


text:
    No. 81-5197.
    Lee v. United States Department of Labor et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5202.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5206.
    Johnakin v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5207.
    Hobbs v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5208.
    Robinson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5209.
    Rubier v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5211.
    Judd v. United States Marine Corps.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5213.
    Gifford et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5214.
    Robinson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5216.
    Cox v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5220.
    Abdulbarr v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5232.
    Turner et al. v. Cowan et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5234.
    Stafford v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5235.
    Holland v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5236.
    Tidwell v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5241.
    Pilgrim v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5250.
    Stockman v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5253.
    Gamble v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5256.
    Troshinsky v. Rosen et al.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5259.
    Doe v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5261.
    Schorn v. Carlson et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5263.
    Jeter v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5267.
    Carr v. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5269.
    Kavaja v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5273.
    Gonzalez v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5275.
    No. 81-5282.
    Ivy v. United States; and Garlington v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5285.
    Delgardo v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5289.
    Noe v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5293.
    Green v. Perrin, Warden, New Hampshire Prison, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5294.
    Green v. Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5297.
    Bowman v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5299.
    Edwards v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5301.
    Valencia, aka Carillo-Vasquez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5302.
    White et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1626.
    McCarthy, Superintendent, California Men’s Colony East v. Harper.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1751.
    Zant, Warden v. Potts.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1984.
    Michigan v. Artuso.
   Ct. App. Mich. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1646.
    General Motors Corp. v. Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 80-2106.
    General Atomic Co. v. United Nuclear Corp. (two cases).
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 80-1713.
    Lin, Administrator, et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Stevens and Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 80-1838.
    International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. City of Evanston.
   App. Ct. Ill, 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the petition for writ of certio-rari, vacate the judgment, and remand the case for further consideration in light of Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527 (1981).


text:
    No. 80-1893.
    DeWeese v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 80-1994.
    Nash County Board of Education v. Biltmore Co. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice White would grant certio-rari.


text:
    No. 80-1908.
    O’Hair et al. v. Clements et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 80-1957.
    Scrimgeour v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 80-2120.
    Witt et al. v. Harbour, Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 80-1916.
    Richards et al. v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 80-2089.
    Petty v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 80-1937.
    No. 80-1938.
    No. 80-1939.
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Public Service Commission of New York et al.; North Carolina Utilities Commission v. Public Service Commission of New York et al.; and North Carolina Natural Gas Corp. et al. v. Public Service Commission of New York et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan, Justice White, and Justice Blackmun would grant cer-tiorari. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


text:
    No. 80-1980.
    Mitchell v. Secretary of the Army.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of petition for certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.


text:
    No. 80-2016.
    Frackelton v. Swanson et al.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Motion of respondents Gus Swanson and Virginia Swanson for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.


text:
    No. 80-2059.
    No. 80-2060.
    Randall v. Reynoldson et al.; and In re Randall.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


text:
    No. 80-2143.
    Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 80-2066.
    University of Pittsburgh v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of American Council on Education for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-2073.
    Stewart v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 80-2094.
    Weaver et al. v. Payton.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 80-2114.
    Lochiatto et al. v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the petition for writ of certiorari and reverse the convictions.


text:
    No. 80-2151.
    New Jersey v. Ryan.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-2074 (A-139).
    Worrell, dba Cherokee Homes Apartments v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Blackmun and referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Con-nor took no part in the consideration or decision of this application and this petition.


text:
    No. 80-2175.
    Control Data Corp. et al. v. Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 80-2179 (A-29).
    Curley v. Curley.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied. Certio-rari denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 80-6810.
    Pratt v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of petitioner to strike the brief in opposition granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.


text:
    No. 80-6928.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall would grant certio-rari.


text:
    No. 81-120.
    Citibank, N. A., et al., Trustees v. Phoenix Resources Co.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 81-337.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner to consolidate with No. 80-2116 denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 80-6610.
    No. 80-6614.
    No. 80-6671.
    No. 80-6675.
    No. 80-6702.
    No. 80-6749.
    No. 80-6786.
    No. 80-6839.
    No. 80-6844.
    No. 80-6864.
    No. 81-5062.
    No. 80-6877.
    No. 80-6949.
    No. 81-5026.
    No. 81-5046.
    No. 81-5048.
    No. 81-5056.
    No. 81-5157.
    No. 81-5158.
    Johnson v. Florida. Greenawalt v. Arizona. Tyler v. Georgia. McManus v. Texas. Harris v. California. Nelson v. Georgia. Strickland v. Georgia. Brown v. Georgia. Justus v. Georgia. Groseclose v. Tennessee. Rickman v. Tennessee. Messer v. Georgia. Dougan v. Florida. Douthit v. Zant, Warden. Ruffin v. Florida. Harper v. Nebraska. Rust v. Nebraska. Peery v. Nebraska. Palmes v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Sup. Ct. Ariz.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Tenn.;

Sup. Ct. Tenn.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Super. Ct. Ga., Butts County;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Sup. Ct. Neb.;

Sup. Ct. Neb.;

Sup. Ct. Neb.; and

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 80-6610, 393 So. 2d 1069; No. 80-6614, 128 Ariz. 150, 624 P. 2d 828; No. 80-6671, 247 Ga. 119, 274 S. E. 2d 549; No. 80-6702, 28 Cal. 3d 935, 623 P. 2d 240; No. 80-6749, 247 Ga. 172, 274 S. E. 2d 317; No. 80-6786, 247 Ga. 219, 275 S. E. 2d 29; No. 80-6839, 247 Ga. 298, 275 S. E. 2d 52; No. 80-6844, 247 Ga. 276, 276 S. E. 2d 242; Nos. 80-6864 and 81-5062, 615 S. W. 2d 142; No. 80-6877, 247 Ga. 316, 276 S. E. 2d 15; No. 80-6949, 398 So. 2d 439; No. 81-5046, 397 So. 2d 277; No. 81-5048, 208 Neb. 568, 304 N. W. 2d 663; No. 81-5056, 208 Neb. 320, 303 N. W. 2d 490; No. 81-5157, 208 Neb. 639, 305 N. W. 2d 354; No. 81-5158, 397 So. 2d 648.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 81-180.
    Reid v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 81-5013.
    Omernick v. Carow et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondents for damages denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.


text:
    No. 81-5014.
    Omernick et al. v. Wisconsin et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Motion of respondents for damages denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.


text:
    No. D-175.
    In re Disbarment of Feldshuh,
   452 U. S. 957. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    October 13, 1981
    No. 80-1958.
    Louisiana Dairy Stabilization Board v. Dairy Fresh Corp. et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from C. A. 5th Cir.

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


text:
    No. 81-207.
    New River Co. v. Robinson, Chief, Water Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources of West Virginia.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 81-292.
    Russum v. Estate of Russum.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Miss, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 81-364.
    Holmes v. City of Los Angeles.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 81-229.
    Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Wis. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5257.
    Scott v. Virginia.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Va. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certio-rari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-247.
    Alabama v. Ritter.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Reed v. State, 407 So. 2d 162 (Ala. 1981).


text:
    No.-.
    Weiss et al. v. Marshall Field & Co. et al.
   Application to direct the Clerk to file petitioners’ application for an extension of time, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

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


text:
    No. A-210.
    Michigan v. Rucinski.
   Application for

stay of state court proceedings, addressed to Justice Rehn-QUIST and referred to the Court, denied.

Justice Rehnquist and Justice O’Connor would grant this application.


text:
    No. A-226.
    Gaar et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   U. S. Tax Ct. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-250.
    Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Office of Consumers’ Counsel, Senior Citizens Coalition, et al.
   Application for stay of execution and enforce-

ment of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-266.
    Zacharski v. United States.
   Application for pretrial release, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-237.
    In re Disbarment of Connaghan.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 451 U. S. 979.]


text:
    No. 90,
    Orig.
    California v. Texas et al.
   Application for a temporary restraining order; motion for a preliminary injunction; motion to add the State of Georgia as a party defendant; and motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, and the supplements thereto, are all denied without prejudice. [For earlier order herein, see 453 U. S. 945.]


text:
    No. 78-1545.
    No. 80-951.
    Zipes et al. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.; and Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 450 U. S. 979.] Motions for divided argument granted, and each of the three parties is allotted 20 minutes for oral argument. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.


text:
    No. 79-1738.
    No. 80-945.
    Nixon v. Fitzgerald; and Harlow et al. v. Fitzgerald.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 452 U. S. 959.] Motion of petitioners for divided argument and for additional time for oral argument granted, and 10 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondent also allotted an additional 10 minutes for oral argument. Motion of Mountain States Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 80-11.
    No. 80-15.
    Merrion et al., dba Merrion & Bayless, et al. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe et al.; and Amoco Production Co. et al. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 449 U. S. 820.] Motion of petitioners and respondents for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 80-203.
    Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 451 U. S. 906.] Motion of Samuel Friedman for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 80-644.
    G. D. Searle & Co. v. Cohn et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 451 U. S. 905.] Motion of Association of Trial Lawyers of America for leave to file a brief as amicus cuñae granted. Motion of Association of Trial Lawyers of America for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus cuñae denied.


text:
    No. 80-986.
    North Haven Board of Education et al. v. Bell, Secretary of Education, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 450 U. S. 909.] Motion of Birch Bayh et al. for leave to file a brief as amici cuñae granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted. Motion of petitioners for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 80-1199.
    American Tobacco Co. et al. v. Patterson et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 452 U. S. 937.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 80-1208.
    No. 80-1471.
    No. 80-1610.
    New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission et al.; Massachusetts et al. v. New Hampshire Legislative Utility Consumers’ Council et al.; and Roberts, Attorney General of Rhode Island, et al. v. New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. H. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 451 U. S. 981.] Motion of New Hampshire Legislative Utility Consumers’ Council to withdraw as a party appel-lee in Nos. 80-1208, 80-1471, and 80-1610 granted. Motion of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission and the State of New Hampshire to dismiss the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission as a party appellee in Nos. 80-1208 and 80-1610 granted. Motion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for substitution of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission as a party appellee in No. 80-1471 denied. It is ordered that the State of New Hampshire be added as a party appellee in No. 80-1471.


text:
    No. 80-1188.
    Edgar v. MITE Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 451 U. S. 968.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for additional time for oral argument granted, and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Motion of appellant for divided argument to permit New York to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae granted, and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Motion of North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 80-1251.
    United States v. Vogel Fertilizer Co.
   Ct. Cl. [Certiorari granted, 450 U. S. 994.] Motion of Delta Metalforming Co., Inc., for leave to file a brief as ami-cus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 80-1257.
    Donald Schriver, Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.,
   451 U. S. 976. Motion of Center on National Labor Policy for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 80-1345.
    Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 451 U. S. 969.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 80-6045.
    Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 452 U. S. 960.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 80-1348.
    Florida Department of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certio-rari granted, 451 U. S. 982.] Motion of Sydney H. McKenzie III, Esquire, to permit Susan E. Gamble to present oral argument pro hac vice granted.


text:
    No. 80-1350.
    Community Communications Co., Inc. v. City of Boulder, Colorado, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 450 U. S. 1039.] Motion of Hybud Equipment Corp. et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae out of time denied.

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


text:
    No. 80-1429.
    Youngberg, Superintendent, Pennhurst State School and Hospital, et al. v. Romeo, an incompetent, by his mother and next friend, Romeo.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 451 U. S. 982.] Motion of Mental Health Advocacy Services et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 80-1538.
    Plyler, Superintendent, Tyler Independent School District, et al. v. Doe, Guardian, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 451 U. S. 968]; and


text:
    No. 80-1934.
    Texas et al. v. Certain Named and Unnamed Undocumented Alien Children et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 452 U. S. 937.] Motion of appellees for divided argument granted. Motion of appellees for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 80-1556.
    Cory, Controller of California, et al. v. White, Attorney General of Texas, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 452 U. S. 904.] Motion of respondent William R. Lummis, Administrator, for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 80-1749.
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al. v. Mississippi et al.
   D. C. S. D. Miss. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 452 U. S. 936.] Motion of ap-pellees for divided argument and for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 81-5218.
    In re Holmes.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 80-1925.
    United Transportation Union v. Long Island Railroad Co. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 452 U. S. 960.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted, and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondents also allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 81-363.
    Karr v. Karr.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 81-5501.
    Breest et al. v. Perrin, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of petitioners to expedite consideration of the petition for cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5351.
    No. 81-5356.
    No. 81-5406.
    No. 81-5521.
    In re Locklin; In re MaGee; In re Barner; and In re Neale.
   Petitions for writs of ha-beas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 81-5295.
    In re MaGee.
   Petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 81-5182.
    In re Scott.
   Petition for writ of prohibition and for other relief denied.


text:
    No. 81-212.
    Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. McClure et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 81-9.
    Washington et al. v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 9th Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted and case set for oral argument in tandem with No. 81-38, Crawford v. Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles, infra.


text:
    No. 81-213.
    Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Hogan et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Mass. Motion of appellees George Hogan et al. for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 80-1991.
    Oregon v. Kennedy.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 80-2102.
    Rendell-Baker et al. v. Kohn et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 80-2043.
    Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26, et al. v. Pico, by his next friend, Pico, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of National Association of Secondary School Principals and Charles H. Keating, Jr., et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 80-2182.
    No. 81-11.
    Inwood Laboratories, Inc., et al. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.; and Darby Drug Co., Inc., et al. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of American Association of Retired Persons et al. and National Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, Inc., for leave to file briefs as amici curiae in No. 80-2182 granted. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 638 F. 2d 538.


text:
    No. 80-2209.
    United States v. Ross.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis and certiorari granted. The parties are directed to address the question whether the Court should reconsider Robbins v. California, 453 U. S. 420 (1981).


text:
    No. 81-1.
    No. 81-3.
    Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc. v. United States; and Bob Jones University v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: No. 81-1, 644 F. 2d 879; No. 81-3, 639 F. 2d 147.


text:
    No. 81-38.
    Crawford et al. v. Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument in tandem with No. 81-9, Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, supra.


text:
    No. 80-1695.
    Air Line Pilots Assn., International v. Pelaez Del Casal et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-2046.
    No. 80-2057.
    New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. United States; and Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 638 F. 2d 899.


text:
    No. 80-2099.
    Davis v. Muellar, Sheriff.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-2122.
    No. 81-350.
    Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. City of Cherokee et al.; and Interstate Commerce Commission v. City of Cherokee et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir, Certiorari denied. Reported below: 641 F. 2d 1220.


text:
    No. 80-2193.
    Page v. Bolger, Postmaster General.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-2213.
    West Gulf Maritime Assn. v. Federal Maritime Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-2222.
    No. 81-218.
    Fedders Corp. et al. v. Chrysler Corp. et al.; and Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 643 F. 2d 1229.


text:
    No. 80-6764.
    Hall et al. v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill, 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6859.
    Gale v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-4.
    Chiravachardhikul v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-32.
    Mosher Steel Co. v. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-33.
    Wollman v. Gross.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-39.
    Shamsee v. United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-48.
    Keeler et al. v. Joy, Commissioner of Rent and Housing Maintenance of New York City.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-64.
    Tose et al. v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N. A., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-83.
    Salone v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-92.
    Spencer et al. v. Rigby, Thatcher & Andrus, P. A.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-93.
    Eain v. Wilkes, United States Marshal.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-98.
    Cook et al. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-109.
    Castro et ux. v. Saudi Arabia.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-110.
    Topping et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-128.
    Lyon & Ryan Ford, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-139.
    Narva Harris Construction Corp. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-143.
    Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Day.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-164.
    City of Painesville, Ohio v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-193.
    Mund v. New York.
   App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-195.
    Jones v. Jones.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-203.
    Ariza-Ibarra et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-210.
    Ohio v. Peterson, Lowry, Rall, Barber & Ross et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-220.
    Kingsbury v. Guam.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-227.
    Halprin et al. v. New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-230.
    Robinson v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-232.
    Mathers et al. v. Morris, Maryland State Administrator of Election Laws, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-243.
    Silverton v. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-246.
    Kania v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-248.
    Ways & Means, Inc., et al. v. IVAC Corp.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-251.
    Ciaccio v. City of Denison.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-252.
    Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Duncan.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-258.
    Milstead v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 957, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-259.
    State Tax Commission of Mississippi et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-262.
    Williams, dba Industrial Communications v. Public Service Commission of Wyoming et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-263.
    Kuhlman v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Montgomery County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-269.
    Murphy v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-270.
    Mansfield v. Securities Investor Protection Corp.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-275.
    Refined Metals Corp. v. Underhill.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-277.
    Mazurek v. Miller et al.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-278.
    Pacific Power & Light Co. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-281.
    Long v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-282.
    Lawrence v. Credithrift of America, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-283.
    Burkee v. Busche.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-284.
    Campbell v. Washington et al.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-285.
    Williamson et al. v. Tucker et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-288.
    Wright et al. v. Rhoades, Administratrix.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-294.
    Nazarian v. Nazarian.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-295.
    Members of the Bridgeport Housing Authority Police Force et al. v. City of Bridgeport et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-297.
    Shreve Equipment, Inc. v. Clay Equipment Corp.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-299.
    Federal Election Commission v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League; and Federal Election Commission v. Citizens for Democratic Alternatives in 1980.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 210 U. S. App. D. C. 267, 655 F. 2d 380 (first case); 210 U. S. App. D. C. 284, 655 F. 2d 397 (second case).


text:
    No. 81-303.
    McNamara v. Quiroz.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-306.
    Jacobson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-308.
    Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Pension Fund et al. v. Rosen.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-316.
    Heritage Homes of Attleboro, Inc. v. Seekonk Water District.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-357.
    Lacey v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-379.
    Wyler v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5019.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5030.
    LaMagna v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5036.
    Rogers v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5052.
    Burkhead v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5058.
    Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5066.
    Kimmes v. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5069.
    In re Zatko.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5094.
    Stout v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5111.
    Schmader v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5127.
    Fearance v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5184.
    Casanova v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5191.
    Oates v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5193.
    Calloway v. Morris, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5194.
    Farrakhan v. Xerox Corp.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5196.
    Morrow v. Wyrick, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5198.
    Parkhurst et al. v. Wyoming.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5199.
    Neal v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5203.
    Washington v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5210.
    Zatko v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5212.
    Clumm v. Jago, Correctional Superintendent.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5219.
    Swain v. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation of Florida.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5223.
    Vaughn v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuya-hoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5221.
    Owens et ux. v. Murphree et al.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5224.
    Walker v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5225.
    Lawson v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5226.
    Pascarella v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5227.
    Lamore v. Inland Division of General Motors Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5229.
    Epps v. Continental Can Co., Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5230.
    Stuart v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5231.
    Nelson v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5233.
    Zatko v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5237.
    Linkletter v. Blackburn, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5238.
    Johnson, aka Wesson v. Kansas.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5239.
    Zapata v. Zapata.
   Ct. App. D. C. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5242.
    Quattlebaum v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5244.
    Simpson v. Engle, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5245.
    Foster v. Estelle.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5246.
    Lipscomb v. American Express Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5247.
    Peterson v. Fogg, Superintendent, Eastern New York Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5248.
    Seymore v. Reader’s Digest Assn., Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5249.
    Harris v. Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5252.
    Yecheskel v. Howard University.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5255.
    Smith v. Devitt et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5258.
    Swinick v. Horn et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5260.
    Stein v. City of University Park, Texas, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5262.
    Nash v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5264.
    Stamps v. Missouri Department of Corrections et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5265.
    Henderson v. Rockwell International, Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5268.
    Wisconsin ex rel. Reddin v. Meekma, Dodge County Sheriff.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5270.
    Smith v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5272.
    Stone v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5276.
    Brooks v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5281.
    Ragulen v. City of Cleveland.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5283.
    Bozeman v. Marshall.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5286.
    Dickinson v. Untreiner, Sheriff of Escambia County, Florida, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5300.
    Mason v. Redman et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5304.
    Mills et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5306.
    Helzer v. Michigan.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5307.
    Hayes v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5308.
    Zatko v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5311.
    Gibbs v. North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5316.
    Bell v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5318.
    Parrish v. City of Virginia Beach et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5327.
    Gregory v. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5328.
    Johl v. Actors’ Equity Assn, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5337.
    Watson v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5345.
    Bottoson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5346.
    Owens v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5348.
    Brewer v. Merit Systems Protection Board et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5352.
    Duarte v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5360.
    United States ex rel. Dzambazovic v. Lane.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5362.
    Caldwell v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5367.
    Patterson v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5371.
    Kriz v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5373.
    Molina v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5385.
    Selvaggi et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5395.
    Flores-Elias v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5398.
    Pitts v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Rehnquist,

text:
    No. 80-1831.
    Board of Education of the North Little Rock, Arkansas School District, et al. v. Davis et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Rehnquist,

dissenting.

Both the Court of Appeals and the District Court have treated this as a school desegregation case, as indeed it is for substantive purposes. But in my view both the Court of Appeals and the District Court wholly failed to come to grips with the requirement that there be an Art. Ill controversy between the parties to the case before a federal court may either entertain it in the first instance or entertain additional proceedings in a case in which the requirements of Art. Ill at one time were met. It has always been my understanding that Art. Ill requirements are as important in desegregation cases as they are in quiet title cases, Fair Labor Standards Act cases, and any number of other types of cases where federal-question jurisdiction may exist. I disagree with the decision of the Court to deny certiorari in this case because, whatever the merits of the dispute as to whether petitioners have or have not achieved a “unitary” school system, litigation to prove or disprove this fact must be conducted by parties who meet the “case or controversy” test.

In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1, 32 (1971), the Court stated that “once the affirmative duty to desegregate has been accomplished and racial discrimination through official action is eliminated,” there is no longer a constitutional violation which would enable the district court to entertain additional litigation in that particular case. Admittedly, school desegregation cases are often long and seemingly intractable; but as the Court said in Swann, supra:

“At some point, these school authorities and others like them should have achieved full compliance with this Court’s decision in Brown Id., at 31.

There is no doubt that a district court is at liberty to treat as a class action a suit filed for the purposes of attaining a “unitary” school system, but it is conceded that no class was ever certified in this case. As we said in Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U. S. 424, 430 (1976):

“Counsel for the individual named respondents, the original student plaintiffs and their parents, argued that this litigation was filed as a class action, that all the parties have until now treated it as a class action, and that the failure to obtain the class certification required under Rule 23 is merely the absence of a meaningless ‘verbal recital’ which counsel insists should have no effect on the facts of this case. But these arguments overlook the fact that the named parties whom counsel originally undertook to represent in this litigation no longer have any stake in its outcome. As to them the case is clearly moot. And while counsel may wish to represent a class of unnamed individuals still attending the Pasadena public schools who do have some substantial interest in the outcome of this litigation, there has been no certification of any such class which is or was represented by a named party to this litigation.”

We there concluded that it was only the presence of the United States as a statutorily authorized intervenor on the side of the original plaintiffs that prevented the case from becoming moot.

School desegregation cases are to the latter half of this century what utility-rate cases were to the first half of it, and what equity receivership cases were to the latter half of the 19th century. Each of these groups of cases has the potential for continued litigation which run-of-the-mine federal criminal cases on direct appeal, and other types of federal civil litigation, do not have. Perhaps because of this fact, there is a tendency on the part of both the litigants and the courts to dispense with what may be regarded as “meaningless ‘verbal recital[s]’ ” which do not bear directly on the substantive issues of the case. But it is worth stating again, as it has been repeatedly stated before, that Art. Ill courts are forums of limited jurisdiction, not courts of general jurisdiction such as exist in most, if not all, of the States.

Yet the Court of Appeals in this case devoted not a single word to the conceded fact that there had been at the time of the most recent hearing in the District Court no remaining plaintiff with a stake in the outcome of the case, nor had there been any previous certification of a class action. Nor, so far as the opinions of the District Court attached to the petition as appendices reveal, did the District Court address the issue. No doubt some, if not all, of the confusion surrounding this case resulted from the appointment of Judge Henley to the Court of Appeals, the death of Judge Shell, and the reassignment of the entire civil docket in the Eastern District of Arkansas on September 1, 1978, in anticipation of the filling of newly created judgeships. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-27.

But regrettable and unavoidable as this confusion may have been, it does not and cannot explain the failure of any of the District Court opinions or the opinion of the Court of Appeals to even address the existence of a case or controversy. From reading those opinions, one would gather that only such remedial issues as faculty assignment, scope of busing, and the like were at issue here. But I think the existence of a case or controversy sought to be saved by an unexplained granting of a motion for intervention in 1977, and not even mentioned by the Court of Appeals, has considerable significance for the federal judicial system over a wide range of cases. I would therefore grant the petition for certiorari limited to the following question, which I believe is fairly subsumed under Question II in the petition:

“Is a District Court at liberty to grant a motion for intervention in a case which has become moot, without any principled explanation therefor, or any reasoned justification of its action by the Court of Appeals, in order to continue its supervision of the operation of a school district?”


text:
    No. 80-2082.
    Boles et al. v. Chavis.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice Rehnquist,

dissenting.

This case originated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and that court issued a brief memorandum opinion and order denying relief to respondent Chavis. Respondent had brought an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 claiming that he had been denied constitutional rights as a result of prison procedures set in motion by the stabbing of a correctional officer at one of the Illinois state prisons, even though he was ultimately exonerated by those procedures. The District Court divided respondent’s complaint into two parts: a claim of denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by reason of the conduct of the hearing before the prison Adjustment Committee in 1976, and a claim that he was denied his “civil rights” when he was transferred to another prison in the system without a hearing. The District Court discussed the 1976 hearing in some detail, and found no violation of due process. In addition, the District Court found that respondent’s transfer without a hearing raised no constitutional issue because of our decision in Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215 (1976). The court accordingly dismissed respondent’s complaint.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the District Court as to the due process claim and also sustained an Eighth Amendment claim upon which the District Court appears not to have passed. Chavez v. Rowe, 643 F. 2d 1281 (CA7 1981). The Court of Appeals stated that “Chavis’ failure to name a particular defendant in connection with his Eighth Amendment allegation is no bar to this claim.” Id., at 1290, n. 9.

I believe that this Court should grant petitioners’ request for review of the manner in which the Court of Appeals treated the respondent’s due process claim. At a hearing on October 2, 1976, the Adjustment Committee dismissed the correctional officer’s “ticket” as “improperly written.” Id., at 1283. The following week, another correctional officer who was also a member of the Adjustment Committee wrote a second “Inmate Violation Report” charging respondent with the assault and stabbing. After a series of proceedings and appeals within the Illinois prison system, the Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, following the recommendation of a Review Board, ordered that the disciplinary report against respondent be expunged from all institutional records, that respondent be released from the segregation in which he had been confined since October, and that his two years of statutory good time be restored. Id., at 1284.

The Court of Appeals thought that the system of prison disciplinary hearings and review established by the State of Illinois did not meet the standards of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539 (1974). It was of the view that the Adjustment Committee’s failure to disclose to respondent an investigatory report containing statements by a witness to the stabbing incident violated this Court’s decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976).

This would have very likely been true had these procedures been constructed on the traditional judicial model, but I had thought one of the touchstones of prison disciplinary proceedings was that they need not be so constructed. As we said in Wolff, supra, at 556:

“Of course, as we have indicated, the fact that prisoners retain rights under the Due Process Clause in no way implies that these rights are not subject to restrictions imposed by the nature of the regime to which they have been lawfully committed. . . . Prison disciplinary proceedings are not a part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply. Cf. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S., at 488. In sum, there must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application.”

Likewise in Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U. S. 308 (1976), we said of Wolff:

“Within the reasonable limitations necessary in the prison disciplinary context, we suggested, but did not require, that the disciplinary committee ‘state its reason for refusing to call a witness, whether it be for irrelevance, lack of necessity, or the hazards presented in individual cases.’ . . .
“We were careful to distinguish between this limited right to call witnesses and other due process rights at disciplinary hearings. We noted expressly that, in comparison to the right to call witnesses, ‘[confrontation and cross-examination present greater hazards to institutional interests.’. . . We said:
‘If confrontation and cross-examination of those furnishing evidence against the inmate were to be allowed as a matter of course, as in criminal trials, there would be considerable potential for havoc inside the prison walls. Proceedings would inevitably be longer and tend to unmanageability.’ . . .
“We therefore concluded that ‘[t]he better course at this time, in a period where prison practices are diverse and somewhat experimental, is to leave these matters to the sound discretion of the officials of state prisons.’” 425 U. S., at 321-322, citing Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, at 566, 567, 569.

It seems to me that the opinion of the Court of Appeals, dealing as it does with the stabbing of a correctional officer as he was escorting a group of inmates including respondent, comes close to disavowing the principles of flexibility and experimentation expounded in Wolff, supra, and Baxter, supra, and virtually mandates a full panoply of courtroom procedures for what we have heretofore described as “diverse” and “flexible” prison dispute settlement mechanisms.


author: Justice Stevens Justice Rehnquist,

text:
    No. 80-2169. No. 80-6451. No. 80-6504. No. 80-6508. No. 80-6586. No. 80-6714. No. 80-6732. No. 80-6757. No. 80-6780. No. 80-6818. No. 80-6932. No. 81-358. No. 81-5021. No. 81-5071. No. 81-5082. No. 81-5118. No. 81-5138.
    Davis v. Jacobs, Probation Commissioner. Gibson v. Blackburn, Warden. Reed v. Ajello, Attorney General of Connecticut, et al. Woodruff v. Allsbrook et al. Dillard v. Marks, Penitentiary Superintendent, et al. Freeman v. Oliver et al. Vinson v. Raines, Warden. McColpin v. Atkins. Humphrey v. Oklahoma et al. Rodziewicz v. Hilton, Prison Superintendent, et al. Clayton v. Estelle, Corrections Director. Williams v. Illinois. Johnson v. Estelle, Warden. Henson v. Redman, Warden. Perkins v. Raines, Prison Superintendent. Dixon v. Raines. Smith v. Mitchell, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir.;

C. A. 5th Cir.;

C. A. 2d Cir.;

C. A. 4th Cir.;

C. A. 3d Cir.;

C. A. 5th Cir.;

C. A. 9th Cir.;

C. A. 10th Cir.;

C. A. 10th Cir.;

C. A. 3d Cir.;

C. A. 5th Cir.;

C. A. 7th Cir.;

C. A. 5th Cir.;

C. A. 3d Cir.;

C. A. 9th Cir.;

C. A. 9th Cir.; and

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 80-6508, 644 F. 2d 883; No. 81-5138, 660 F. 2d 493.

Opinion of

Justice Stevens

respecting the denial of the petitions for writs of certiorari.

The question raised by the dissenting opinion is whether the order to be entered in these 17 cases should be a dismissal or a denial. Although this question might be characterized as a procedural technicality — because its resolution is a matter of complete indifference to the litigants — the argument made in the dissent merits a response because it creates the impression that the Court’s answer to this arcane inquiry demonstrates that the Court is discharging its responsibilities in a lawless manner. The impression is quite incorrect.

The petitioners in these cases are state prisoners. None of them has a meritorious claim. Their habeas corpus petitions were all dismissed by Federal District Judges, and they all unsuccessfully sought review in the United States Courts of Appeals. Because none of the petitioners obtained a certificate of probable cause, none of these cases was properly “in” the Court of Appeals and therefore 28 U. S. C. § 1254 does not give this Court jurisdiction over the petitions for certiorari. It is perfectly clear, however, that if there were merit to the petitions, the Court would have ample authority to review them in either of two ways.

First, as the Court expressly decided in 1945 in a case that is procedurally identical to these, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1651. In House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42, the Court conceded that it lacked certiorari jurisdiction under the predecessor to §1254, but squarely held that the All Writs Act, now 28 U. S. C. § 1651, authorized the Court to “grant a writ of certiorari to review the action of the court of appeals in declining to allow an appeal to it” and to review the “questions on the merits sought to be raised by the appeal.” 324 U. S., at 44-45. The Court has consistently followed House v. Mayo for over 35 years.

Second, as the dissent notes: “[A] Circuit Justice, or this Court itself, may issue a certificate of probable cause. See Rosoto v. Warden, 83 S. Ct. 1788, 11 L. Ed. 2d 15 (1963) (Harlan, J., in chambers); In re Hunt, 348 U. S. 968 (1955) (Court denying certificate).” Post, at 918. Because we have that authority, it is part of our responsibility in processing these petitions to determine whether they have arguable merit notwithstanding the failure of a district or circuit judge to authorize an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

A complete explanation of the Court’s conclusion that these cases have insufficient merit to warrant the exercise of its jurisdiction should therefore include three elements: (1) the petitioner has incorrectly invoked our jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254 because no certificate of probable cause was issued; (2) the Court has decided not to exercise its jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1651; and (3) neither the Circuit Justice nor the Court has decided to issue a certificate of probable cause. Instead of entering detailed orders of this kind in all of these cases, the Court wisely has adopted the practice of entering simple denials. Ironically, the dissenters argue that this settled practice creates “more paperwork.” Post, at 919.

As a practical matter, given the volume of frivolous, illegible, and sometimes unintelligible petitions that are filed in this Court, our work is facilitated by the practice of simply denying certiorari once a determination is made that there is no merit to the petitioner’s claim. As the dissenters recognize, that determination must be made in all cases because Circuit Justices have the power — and indeed the duty — to issue certificates of probable cause in proper cases. Imposing on the Court the additional burden of determining in every case whether the form of the order should be a denial or a dismissal is not a trivial matter because in many cases more time would be required in searching the record to be sure that no certificate of probable cause was issued than is required in evaluating a contention that has been unsuccessfully advanced by countless other prisoners.

For these reasons, I believe the Court correctly adheres to the practice it consistently has followed since the decision of House v. Mayo in 1945.

Justice Rehnquist,

with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Powell join,

dissenting.

In Jeffries v. Barksdale, 453 U. S. 914 (1981), The Chief Justice, Justice Powell, and I dissented from a simple denial of the writ of certiorari, contending that the writ should instead be dismissed because we had no jurisdiction to consider it. Further reflection and research have only strengthened my belief that where a specific statutory enactment dealing with our jurisdiction to consider decisions of the courts of appeals limits that jurisdiction to ‘Tejases in the courts of appeals,” 28 U. S. C. § 1254, we are bound by that statutory provision just as we would be bound by any other statutory provision, unless we were to hold it violative of some provision of the Constitution.

In each of these cases, the petitioner was convicted in a state court. He then sought habeas corpus relief in a United States District Court, and the District Court dismissed the action or denied the writ and refused to issue a certificate of probable cause to appeal. Section 2253 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides as follows: “An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a ha-beas corpus proceeding where the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court, unless the justice or judge who rendered the order or a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of probable cause” (emphasis supplied).

The effect of this statute, which could not have been drafted in plainer terms, is clear: a certificate of probable cause is an indispensable prerequisite to an appeal from the District Court to the appropriate Court of Appeals. This has long been recognized by the courts, see, e. g., Wilson v. Lanagan, 79 F. 2d 702 (CA1 1935); Hooks v. Fourth District Court of Appeal, 442 F. 2d 1042 (CA5 1971), and by distinguished commentators, see, e. g., Blackmun, Allowance of In Forma Pauperis Appeals in §2255 and Habeas Corpus Cases, 43 F. R. D. 343, 351 (1967). Our cases are not entirely in harmony as to their reasoning on this issue, though all concede that there is no jurisdiction to grant a writ of certiorari where both the District Court and the Court of Appeals have denied a habeas corpus petitioner a certificate of probable cause to appeal. See Bilik v. Strassheim, 212 U. S. 551 (1908); Ex parte Patrick, 212 U. S. 555 (1908); House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42, 44 (1945). In House, however, this Court held that although it could not entertain a petition for certiorari, it had jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, currently codified at 28 U. S. C. § 1651, to determine the merits of the habeas petition, as well as whether the Court of Appeals had abused its discretion in denying the petitioner a certificate of probable cause to appeal. Id., at 44-45. In reaching this conclusion, it relied on a series of cases interpreting the scope of the common-law writ of certiorari under the All Writs Act. See, e. g., Steffler v. United States, 319 U. S. 38 (1943); Wells v. United States, 318 U. S. 257 (1943); In re 620 Church St. Corp., 299 U. S. 24 (1936).

This reasoning, however, would seem to conflict with the principles established in United States Alkali Export Assn. v. United States, 325 U. S. 196, 203 (1945), and its companion case De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U. S. 212 (1945). These two cases hold that where Congress has withheld appellate review, the All Writs Act cannot be used as a substitute for an authorized appeal. Review by common-law certiorari or any other extraordinary writ is not permissible in the face of a legislative purpose to foreclose review in a particular set of circumstances. Alkali Export, supra, at 203.

Congress, in enacting 28 U. S. C. §2253, has determined that an indispensable prerequisite to an appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding is a certificate of probable cause. The legislative history of this section demonstrates a clear congressional purpose to impose this requirement as a means of terminating frivolous appeals in habeas corpus proceedings. See H. R. Rep. No. 23, 60th Cong., 1st Sess. (1908). Undoubtedly, one of the purposes of §2253 is to protect the States from the necessity of responding to the volume of frivolous appeals. This purpose is hardly furthered when uncertificated petitioners are permitted to seek common-law writs of certiorari in this Court, thereby imposing a burden upon the States to respond. Where the statutory scheme permits appellate review only upon the issuance of such a certificate, review by extraordinary writ in the absence of a certificate collides with Congress’ express purpose to foreclose review.

We should not fear that a more exacting application of §2253 will result in meritorious petitions for habeas corpus slipping by unobservant or callous Courts of Appeals, thereby evading any review by this Court. Pursuant to § 2253, a Circuit Justice, or this Court itself, may issue a certificate of probable cause. See Rosoto v. Warden, 83 S. Ct. 1788, 11 L. Ed. 2d 15 (1963) (Harlan, J., in chambers); In re Hunt, 348 U. S. 968 (1955) (Court denying certificate). Thus, the failure to observe the congressional mandate as to this Court’s jurisdiction of a petition for certiorari to a Court of Appeals in the absence of a certificate of probable cause in no way bars consideration of the merits of a petition which any Member of this Court believes to be deserving of a certificate of probable cause.

But the practice from which I dissented in Jeffries v. Barksdale, 453 U. S. 914 (1981), in addition to creating more paperwork with no observable change in the results of a case, has at least two singularly undesirable side effects. Presumably a case where a Court of Appeals has refused to grant leave to appeal, and thus has neither examined the accuracy of petitioner’s factual assertions nor articulated the reasons for its conclusion that petitioner’s legal contentions lack merit, is not an ideal candidate for certiorari here entirely apart from the importance of the issues presented by such a petition. In Conway v. California Adult Authority, 396 U. S. 107 (1969), this Court dismissed a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted because the petitioner had misstated the facts in his petition so as to create a purely artificial and hypothetical issue.

But an even more important consequence of the disregard of congressional provisions as to our jurisdiction is a tendency to weaken the authority of this Court when it can demonstrate in a principled manner that it has either the constitutional or statutory authority to decide a particular issue. The necessary concomitant of our tripartite system of government that the other two branches of government obey judgments rendered within our jurisdiction is sapped whenever we decline for any reason other than the exercise of our own constitutional duties to similarly follow the mandates of Congress and the Executive within their spheres of authority.

       The dissenting opinion makes the entirely unwarranted assumption that United States Alkali Export Assn. v. United States, 325 U. S. 196 (1945), and its companion case, De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U. S. 212 (1945), decided only a few weeks after House, implicitly overruled that case. In those cases, the petitioners had sought by writs of certiorari interlocutory review of orders issued by Federal District Courts, and the statutes that expressly conferred upon this Court appellate jurisdiction did not provide for interlocutory review. Despite its language that “[t]he writs may not be used as a substitute for an authorized appeal,” 325 U. S., at 203, the Court reasoned that in both cases there were countervailing interests that so outweighed the interest in avoidance of piecemeal review that review by certiorari was appropriate. The holdings in Alkali and De Beers actually reinforce the holding in House because the interest in granting habeas relief in a deserving case clearly outweighs the interest in terminating frivolous appeals, especially when certiorari petitions are filed with this Court despite the refusals of the lower courts to grant certificates of probable cause. See Oaks, The “Original” Writ of Ha-beas Corpus in the Supreme Court, 1962 S. Ct. Rev. 153, 187, and n. 158 (distinguishing De Beers from House on the ground that the former involved property rights).

       In Burwell v. Teets, 350 U. S. 808 (1955), and Rogers v. Teets, 350 U. S. 809 (1955), the Court granted writs of certiorari despite the refusals of the lower courts to grant certificates of probable cause. See In re Burwell, 350 U. S. 521 (1956). And in In re Adamson, 334 U. S. 834 (1948), the Court denied a petition for certiorari despite the denials by the lower courts of the petitioner’s applications for a certificate of probable cause to appeal. See Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 537, n. 11 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in result). For the proposition that House reflects the historically correct view of the scope of the common-law writ of certiorari, see Oaks, supra, at 182-189.

       We do follow the practice in handling our appellate docket of treating appeals that are improperly taken as though they had been filed as petitions for certiorari and then denying them, cf. 28 U. S. C. § 2103; however, it hardly seems necessary to adopt a similar practice in the administration of our discretionary powers over certiorari petitions.

         It is noteworthy that Justice Frankfurter, who was especially scrupulous about jurisdictional matters, considered it entirely appropriate to deny certiorari because of a jurisdictional defect. In his opinion respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U. S. 912, 917-918 (1950), he stated:
      “Narrowly technical reasons may lead to denials. Review may be sought too late; the judgment of the lower court may not be final; it may not be the judgment of a State court of last resort; the decision may be supportable as a matter of State law, not subject to review by this Court, even though the State court also passed on issues of federal law. A decision may satisfy all these technical requirements and yet may commend itself for review to fewer than four members of the Court.”

       The dissenters place mistaken reliance on Bilik v. Strassheim, 212 U. S. 551 (1908). That decision was a one-line per curiam dismissal for want of jurisdiction of an appeal of the denial of a habeas corpus petition by a state prisoner where the Circuit Court had not granted a certificate of probable cause. The Court relied upon the Act of Mar. 10,1908, ch. 76, 35 Stat. 40, which provides as follows:
      “[F]rom a final decision by a court of the United States in a proceeding in habeas corpus where the detention complained of is by virtue of process issued out of a State court no appeal to the Supreme Court shall be allowed unless the United States court by which the final decision was rendered or a justice of the Supreme Court shall be of opinion that there exists probable cause for an appeal, in which event, on allowing the same, the said court or justice shall certify that there is probable cause for such allowance.” See 212 U. S., at 551, n. 1.
      That Act expressly refers to this Court’s jurisdiction over appeals by state prisoners of denials of habeas corpus relief by lower federal courts. Title 28 U. S. C. § 2253, by contrast, refers to the courts of appeals’ jurisdiction over such appeals. Section 2253 bears on this Court’s jurisdiction only because this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254 is limited to “[cjases in the courts of appeals.”

       Although the concurring opinion correctly notes that this Court utilized the common-law writ in Alkali Export to review an interlocutory order by the District Court, this hardly “reinforce[s] the holding in House [v. Mayo].” Ante, at 913, n. 1. The questions in Alkali Export involved the propriety of an exercise of the District Court’s equitable jurisdiction, where there was an apparent conflict between its jurisdiction and that of the agency specifically charged by Congress with the duty of enforcing the antitrust laws under the circumstances present in that case. Thus, the common-law writ was utilized by this Court in Alkali Export only to determine whether the District Court’s assumption of jurisdiction conflicted with Congress’ intent to foreclose such jurisdiction pending a determination of a particularly sensitive issue by the Federal Trade Commission. Alkali Export, 325 U. S., at 203-204. In contrast, use of the common-law writ to review uncertificated petitions does not operate to ensure that a lower court is exercising its jurisdiction in accord with congressional intent. It has precisely the opposite effect of providing uncertificated petitioners with certiorari review in the teeth of a congressional mandate that such review should not be available.


text:
    No. 80-6514.
    Hawkins v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Motion of American Civil Liberties Union et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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