text:
    No. 86-1034.
    Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Inc., et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 4th Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted. In addition to the question presented on appeal, the parties are directed to brief and argue the question of appellees’ standing.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 86-761.
    Forrester v. White.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-803.
    Boos et al. v. Barry, Mayor of the District of Columbia, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-863.
    Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Kizer, Director of California Department of Health Services, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-937.
    United States v. Robinson.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-986.
    Schneidewind et al. v. ANR Pipeline Co. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-987.
    Haig et al. v. Bissonette et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-1021.
    Carnegie-Mellon University et al. v. Cohill, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-1108.
    Vermont v. Cox.
   Sup. Ct. Vt. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-2079.
    Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California et al. v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co., Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, Laborers International Union of North America National (Industrial) Pension Fund, and Construction Laborers’ Trust Funds for Southern California for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-279.
    Basic Inc. et al. v. Levinson et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.

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


text:
    No. 86-728.
    Honig, California Superintendent of Public Instruction v. Doe et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1 and 3 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 86-870.
    Phillips Petroleum Co. et al. v. Mississippi et al.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Motions of Robert E. Longino, Jr., and City of Elizabeth, New Jersey, et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-877.
    United States v. Owens.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-6169.
    Thompson v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-2001.
    Evans v. Arkansas.
   Ct. App. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-239.
    No. 86-608.
    Chemical Manufacturers Assn. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.; and Chicago Association of Commerce & Industry et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 2d 289.


text:
    No. 86-532.
    City of Los Angeles et al. v. Buttler et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-565.
    Manson, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Corrections v. Alston et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-652.
    Maryland v. Clark.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-680.
    Clancy v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-735.
    No. 86-736.
    No. 86-942.
    Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al.; Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al.; and Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission et al. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 796 F. 2d 584.


text:
    No. 86-741.
    Binker, aka Manolo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-749.
    Board of Trustees of Alabama State University v. Alabama State Board of Education et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-762.
    Cardo v. Murphy et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-763.
    Spurlock v. Wren.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-775.
    Marsh Media, Ltd. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-792.
    Koppel et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-808.
    Marchini v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-819.
    Glover Bottled Gas Corp. et al. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-825.
    Jones et al. v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-826.
    Thomas et al. v. United States; Ivy v. United States; Smith v. United States; Thompson v. United States; Defibaugh v. United States; McCallum v. United States; Holmes v. United States; Schlote v. United States; and Shepherd v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 22 M. J. 388 (first case); 23 M. J. 153 (second case); 23 M. J. 163 (third case); 23 M. J. 153 (fourth case); 23 M. J. 180 (fifth case); 23 M. J. 156 (sixth case); 23 M. J. 152 (seventh case); 23 M. J. 155 (eighth case); 23 M. J. 155 (ninth case).


text:
    No. 86-834.
    New Jersey District Court Assn., Inc., et al. v. Supreme Court of New Jersey et al.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-835.
    Thompson Medical Co., Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-847.
    Prudential Insurance Company of America v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-848.
    Hayes v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-854.
    Meacham et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-864.
    Akers et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-867.
    Session et ux. v. I. T. O. Corporation of Ameriport.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-873.
    Mazza v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-874.
    Pittman v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-881.
    Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund et al. v. Kraftco, Inc., dba Sealtest Foods Division.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-883.
    Nescco, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-886.
    Augustus et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-888.
    Franklin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-892.
    San Marcos County Water District v. San Marcos Unified School District.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-896.
    Bentley Laboratories, Inc. v. Shiley, Inc.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-899.
    No. 86-5924.
    Thigpen, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jones; and Jones v. Thigpen, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 2d 1101 and 795 F. 2d 521.


text:
    No. 86-902.
    American Airlines, Inc., et al. v. Dooley et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-903.
    Zartuche v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-910.
    Exportadora Colombiana de Emeraldas Co., Ltd., et al. v. $630,000 in United States Currency et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-912.
    Vaughn et al. v. General Foods Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-914.
    Mihalcik v. Illinois Employers Insurance of Wausau.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-916.
    Carter v. Louisiana.
   Ct. App. La., 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-919.
    Limpert Brothers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-921.
    No. 86-956.
    Bagley v. IBP, Inc.; and IBP, Inc. v. Bagley.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 797 F. 2d 632.


text:
    No. 86-924.
    Jordan v. Schroeder, Personal Representative for the Estate of Schroeder.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-929.
    Della-Donna v. Gore Newspapers Co. et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-931.
    Machleder v. CBS Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-945.
    WKRG-TV, Inc. v. Wiley.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-948.
    Calumet County, Wisconsin v. Kossman et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-949.
    Argus Inc. et al. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-959.
    Faloona et al., by Their Next Friend, Fredrickson v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-961.
    Campbell Sales Co. v. New York State Tax Commission.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-962.
    Hutchinson et al. v. Miller et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-963.
    Brookpark News & Books, Inc., et al. v. City of Cleveland et al.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-967.
    Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co. v. Beissel.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-968.
    Geneva County Board of Education v. Hidle.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-969.
    Kanarek v. Wambaugh et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-970.
    Binker v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-971.
    Robertson v. Alexander Grant & Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-972.
    Hummel v. Hummel.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-973.
    South Ranch Oil Co., Inc. v. Seismic International Research Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-975.
    Williams v. Overton Manor East Homeowners Assn., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-976.
    California v. Carey.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-984.
    Behar v. Southeast Bank Trust Co., N. A., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-988.
    Jameson v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corporation et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-992.
    Reardon v. Reardon et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-993.
    Cox v. Norton, Director of Tax Collection of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1001.
    Gray Hill, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1005.
    Sommers Drug Stores Company Employee Profit Sharing Trust v. Corrigan et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1009.
    Coffelt et al. v. Arkansas State Highway Commission.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1010.
    Holyfield et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1011.
    McGovren v. Superior Court of California, Alameda County (California, Real Party in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1017.
    DeJesus v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1018.
    Rosenthal v. Hafif et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1027.
    Sun-Land Nurseries, Inc. v. Southern California District Council of Laborers et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1028.
    Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Quinto de Garcia.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1036.
    Mayes, t/a Jackson Estates v. Jackson Township Rent Leveling Board et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1037.
    Iervolino v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1041.
    Riggin v. Riggin.
   Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1047.
    Unit Rig & Equipment Co. v. Sheldon.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1056.
    Camoscio v. Hewett.
   App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1058.
    Bell v. Bell.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1066.
    Gibson v. Mobil Producing Texas & New Mexico, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1069.
    Wagner et al. v. Brazas et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1072.
    New York v. P. J. Video, Inc., dba Network Video, et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1073.
    Great Commonwealth Life Insurance Co. et al. v. Branch Bank & Trust Co. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1075.
    Meehan v. PPG Industries, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1076.
    Prieto v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1078.
    Goichman v. Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1084.
    Boyles et al. v. Almond et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1086.
    Rivera v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1087.
    A & E Supply Co., Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1090.
    Nation v. El Dorado School District et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1091.
    Larson v. O’Connell et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1093.
    Guccione v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1094.
    Staton v. Mayes et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1097.
    Apollo of the Ozarks, Inc., et al. v. Giotis et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1100.
    Wilson v. International Ocean Transport Corp., aka Grand Bassa Tankers, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1103.
    Papadakis v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1107.
    Henderson v. Connecticut.
   App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1111.
    Derby Associates v. Seashore Club Condominium Assn., Inc., et al.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1112.
    Tucker et al. v. Ambassador Beach Hotel et al.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1113.
    Bergman et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1117.
    Bartman et al. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1120.
    DiBenedetto v. Massachusetts et al.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1124.
    Jackson v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1130.
    Allen v. Supreme Court of Indiana et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1132.
    Lopez v. New Mexico.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1138.
    Pelham v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1139.
    Neville v. Finnerty et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1142.
    Moody v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1182.
    Bodwell et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1186.
    Swierkowski et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1189.
    Georgius v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1195.
    Joyce v. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5476.
    Brown v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5483.
    Wheadon v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5565.
    Jovanovic v. Tate, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institute.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5581.
    Walton v. Morris, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5657.
    Jefferies v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5741.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5752.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5762.
    Walker v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5815.
    McDermott v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5828.
    Heinemann v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5855.
    Pauli v. Jabe, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5857.
    Van Horn v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5868.
    Fowler v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5911.
    Waguespack v. Peavey Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5922.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5928.
    Elshenawy v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5946.
    Eggleston v. County of Santa Clara et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5961.
    Gomez v. Office of Personnel Management.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5976.
    Rodriquez-Mondragon v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5982.
    Falcon v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5983.
    Bauer v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5985.
    Brown v. Retirement Committee of the Briggs & Stratton Retirement Plan et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5988.
    Yancy v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5989.
    Wilson v. Denton et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6006.
    Lyda et al. v. John K. et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6010.
    Cox v. Muncy, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6014.
    Bondurant v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6018.
    Carmona v. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6019.
    Cole v. Douglas, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6020.
    Blanding v. Muncy, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6022.
    Barritt v. Bordenkircher, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6025.
    Sturm v. California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6028.
    Mercado v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6030.
    Wilkie v. Foltz, Regional Administrator, Michigan Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6036.
    Weatherspoon v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Western Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6038.
    Traylor v. City of Atlanta et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6039.
    Myers v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6041.
    Fabian v. Ryan.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6045.
    Avedisian v. Hubbard et ux.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6046.
    Reese v. Fairman, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6047.
    Ward v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6048.
    Brown v. Maryland.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6051.
    Pritchett v. Grisswold, Acting Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6052.
    Pikop v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6053.
    Quinonez-Cienfuegos v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6056.
    Amos v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6058.
    Graham v. Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6064.
    Mulazim v. Redman, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6065.
    Wilkins v. Webb et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6068.
    Ruebke v. Kansas.
   Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6069.
    Patterson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6070.
    Fitzgibbons v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6072.
    Dunlap v. Beshear, Attorney General of Kentucky, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6073.
    Alberto v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6075.
    Heller v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6077.
    Kucher v. Maderios et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6078.
    Leal v. Dahlberg, Superintendent, Ohio State Reformatory.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6079.
    Akbar v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6080.
    Jafree v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6081.
    Little v. Lynaugh, Interim Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6083.
    Buitrago v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6084.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6086.
    Hardnett v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6088.
    Wright v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6089.
    Mahoney v. South Dakota.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6091.
    Oliver v. Bunnell, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6095.
    Sheffy v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6096.
    Isbell v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6097.
    Jemison v. Jones, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6098.
    Green v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6099.
    Chuwang v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6100.
    Leehan v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6102.
    Ball v. Secretary of Health and Human Services et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6104.
    Dillow v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6110.
    Siano v. Massachusetts.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6112.
    Shaid v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6113.
    Van Gossen v. Texaco Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6115.
    King v. Thompson.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6116.
    Freeman v. Keeney.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6117.
    Buchanan v. Rees, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6118.
    Haselhuhn v. Wyoming.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6119.
    Jones v. Howard et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6122.
    Ferlito v. Commissioner of Correction of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6126.
    Myers v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6127.
    James v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6128.
    Jackson v. Newsome, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6131.
    Armstrong v. Chrans, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6132.
    Alonzo v. Lynaugh, Interim Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6135.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6136.
    Martin v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6137.
    Safir v. United States Lines Inc. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6138.
    Powell v. Fiori et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6140.
    Wallace v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6141.
    Bartrug et al. v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6142.
    Johnson v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6144.
    Conger v. Louisiana et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6146.
    Tysko v. Haigh et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6147.
    Russell v. Garraghty, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6149.
    Rule v. O’Leary, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6151.
    Ward v. Michigan et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6152.
    Rojas-Gonzalez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6153.
    Griffith v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6155.
    McBride et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6157.
    Miller, Administratrix of the Estate of Miller v. Mecklenburg County et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6158.
    No. 86-6198.
    Venegas v. United States; and Vindiola v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 800 F. 2d 868.


text:
    No. 86-6162.
    Clark v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6165.
    Bottiglierie et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6172.
    Sperling v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6174.
    Nicholas v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6178.
    Montoya v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6181.
    Henkel v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6186.
    Fernandez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6189.
    Rodriguez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-6211.
    Parker v. Illinois.
   App. Ct Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 85-6783.
    No. 85-7008.
    No. 85-7016.
    No. 85-7232.
    No. 86-5207.
    No. 86-5434.
    No. 86-5599.
    No. 86-5801.
    No. 86-5906.
    No. 86-5958.
    No. 86-5994.
    No. 86-5997.
    No. 86-6017.
    No. 86-6026.
    No. 86-6033.
    No. 86-6092.
    No. 86-6194.
    Wright v. Illinois. Lesko v. Pennsylvania. Floyd v. Alabama. Cargill v. Georgia. Morgan v. Illinois. Olinger v. Illinois. Montgomery v. Illinois. Hill v. Nevada. Szabo v. Illinois. Cooper v. Florida. Brooks v. Ohio. Justus v. Bass, Superintendent, Mecklenburg Correctional Center. Hill v. Arkansas. Wright v. Alabama. Cooper v. Tennessee. Muhammad v. Florida. Dufour v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Ill.;

Sup. Ct. Pa.;

Sup. Ct. Ala.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Ill.;

Sup. Ct. Ill.;

Sup. Ct. Ill.;

Sup. Ct. Nev.;

Sup. Ct. Ill.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Sup. Ct. Ohio;

Sup. Ct. Va.;

Sup. Ct. Ark.;

Sup. Ct. Ala.;

Sup. Ct. Tenn.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.; and

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 85-6783, 111 Ill. 2d 128, 490 N. E. 2d 640; No. 85-7008, 509 Pa. 67, 501 A. 2d 200; No. 85-7016, 486 So. 2d 1321; No. 85-7232, 255 Ga. 616, 340 S. E. 2d 891; No. 86-5207, 112 Ill. 2d 111, 492 N. E. 2d 1303; No. 86-5434, 112 Ill. 2d 324, 493 N. E. 2d 579; No. 86-5599, 112 Ill. 2d 517, 494 N. E. 2d 475; No. 86-5801, 102 Nev. 377, 724 P. 2d 734; No. 86-5906, 113 Ill. 2d 83, 497 N. E. 2d 995; No. 86-5958, 492 So. 2d 1059; No. 86-5994, 25 Ohio St. 3d 144, 495 N. E. 2d 407; No. 86-6017, 289 Ark. 387, 713 S. W. 2d 233; No. 86-6026, 494 So. 2d 745; No. 86-6033, 718 S. W. 2d 256; No. 86-6092, 494 So. 2d 969; No. 86-6194, 495 So. 2d 154.

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. 86-589.
    Krupps et al. v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 86-830.
    Celcom Communications Corporation of Pennsylvania v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 86-882.
    No. 86-1114.
    Hodgson et al. v. Minnesota et al.; and Minnesota v. Hodgson et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 86-885.
    Boston & Maine Corp. v. Lenfest et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of National Railway Labor Conference for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-893.
    Jackson Water Works, Inc., et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White and Justice Powell would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 86-938.
    Tennessee v. Fletcher.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-965.
    Miller et al. v. Sullivan et al.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 86-981.
    Major Media of the Southeast, Inc., dba Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company of Raleigh-Durham v. City of Raleigh.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motions of North Carolina Restaurant Association, Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc., and Advertising Council Inc. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-982.
    Hanton v. Kennedy et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1003.
    Salinas et al. v. Roadway Express, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondent Roadway Express, Inc., for damages denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1036.
    Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice Creams v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Pillsbury Co. et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Black-mun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 86-5996.
    Barksdale et al. v. International Business Machines Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 86-6074.
    Gormong v. Cleveland Electric Company of Georgia, Inc.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 86-1039.
    Township of Piscataway et al. v. New Jersey Citizen Action et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice White and Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 86-1109.
    Celauro, Commissioner of Revenue of Tennessee v. Midland Bank & Trust Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Motion of Multistate Tax Commission for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1123.
    Religious Technology Center et al. v. Wollersheim et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 86-1196 (A-532).
    Bennett v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Bkennan and referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-5846.
    Hovey v. McCarthy, Director, California Department of Corrections.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 86-5902.
    Gwaltney v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 86-615.
    No. 86-619.
    No. 86-667.
    No. 86-5761.
    No. 86-5863.
    No. 86-5886.
    No. 86-5942.
    Brown v. Brown, Allen v. Chilton Co., Division of A. B. C., Inc., Polyak v. Buford Evans & Sons, Bratton-Bey v. Comptroller of the Treasury, DuBose v. United States, Telepo v. Edwards et al., Taft-Tsarelka v. Massachusetts et al.,
   ante, p. 1008;

ante, p. 1008;

ante, p. 1018;

ante, p. 994;

ante, p. 1042;

ante, p. 1042; and

ante, p. 1043. Petitions for rehearing denied.


author: Justice Powell, Circuit Justice.

text:
    CURRY et al. v. BAKER, CHAIRMAN OF ALABAMA STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, et al.
    No. A-262.
    Decided October 7, 1986
   Justice Powell, Circuit Justice.

This is an application for a stay of the mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari. The case involves the legal contest between two candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Alabama. One of the applicants received a majority of the votes cast in a runoff election held on June 24, 1986. A three-judge court found that the applicant had encouraged widespread violations of a state party rule against crossover voting in the runoff, a rule that apparently has the force of state law. Henderson v. Graddick, 641 F. Supp. 1192 (MD Ala. 1986). The State Democratic Executive Committee conducted an investigation, concluded that the applicant’s opponent received a majority of the votes legally cast, and certified the applicant’s opponent as the Democratic nominee. The issue, generally stated, is whether the actions of the State Democratic Executive Committee exceeded the bounds of due process. Following state-court litigation, the applicants filed this 42 U. S. C. § 1983 action in the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The District Court found a constitutional violation and ordered a new election. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. 802 F. 2d 1302 (1986). The court found no violation of federal law.

This Court rarely grants a stay of mandate pending disposition of the petition for certiorari unless three conditions are met. First, there must be a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari. Second, there must be a significant possibility that a majority of the Court will conclude that the decision below was erroneous. Finally, there must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if the decision below is not stayed. White v. Florida, 458 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers). This case presents unique facts closely tied to Alabama election law and rules. The applicants concede that this case is unlikely to recur. There is no conflict among the Circuits. It is no doubt true that, absent the runoff election ordered by the District Court, the applicant here will suffer irreparable injury. This fact alone is not sufficient to justify a stay in the unique circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the application is denied.

      The applicants are one of the candidates and two persons who voted for him in the runoff.


author: Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice.

text:
    KENTUCKY v. STINCER
    No. A-274 (86-572).
    Decided October 15, 1986
   Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice.

I doubt the conclusion of the Kentucky Supreme Court that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment gives an accused child molester the right to be present at the hearing inquiring into the competency of his child victim to testify. I see, moreover, at least a “fair prospect” that a majority of this Court would find that conclusion erroneous. See Rostker v. Goldberg, 448 U. S. 1306, 1308 (1980) (Brennan, J., in chambers). However, approximately one month after this case was decided the Kentucky Legislature enacted a statute providing specific procedures for securing the testimony of young victims of sexual abuse. See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.350 (Supp. 1986). The Supreme Court of Kentucky has upheld the validity of that statute, even though it does not require presence of the accused at the competency hearing. See Commonwealth v. Willis, 716 S. W. 2d 224 (1986). Since, therefore, it is unlikely that the issue presented by this case will arise again in Kentucky, and since I am unaware of any other State which has resolved the issue as did the Kentucky Supreme Court, see, e. g., State v. Taylor, 103 N. M. 189, 195, 704 P. 2d 443, 449 (App. 1985); Moll v. State, 351 N. W. 2d 639, 644 (Minn. App. 1984); People v. Breitweiser, 38 Ill. App. 3d 1066, 1067-1068, 349 N. E. 2d 454, 455-456 (1976); State v. Ritchey, 107 Ariz. 552, 555, 490 P. 2d 558, 561 (1971), I cannot discern “a ‘reasonable probability’ that four Justices will . . . [vote] to grant certiorari . . ." Rostker v. Goldberg, supra, at 1308 (citations omitted). The application for stay of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is accordingly

Denied.


author: Justice O’Connor, Circuit Justice.

text:
    HICKS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA, acting on behalf of FEIOCK v. FEIOCK
    No. A-288.
    Decided October 23, 1986
   Justice O’Connor, Circuit Justice.

Applicant requests that I issue a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari to review the judgment of the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three. The California Court of Appeal judgment granted Phillip William Feiock’s petition for habeas corpus, holding that the United States Constitution requires that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a civil contempt proceeding that Mr. Feiock was able to comply with a previous court order. The Orange County Superior Court had ordered Mr. Feiock to make child support payments, and after Mr. Feiock failed to comply with this court order, he was held in civil contempt. He was sentenced to a 25-day suspended sentence, placed on probation, and ordered to begin making his child support payments or prepare himself for incarceration. At the civil contempt hearing, the trial court applied Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1209.5 (West 1982), which provides that proof that a court of competent jurisdiction had issued a child support order which was filed and served on a parent, together with proof of noncompliance, constitutes prima facie evidence of a contempt of court.

On petition of Mr. Feiock, the California Court of Appeal granted a writ of habeas corpus and annulled the judgment of contempt. In re Feiock, 180 Cal. App. 3d 649, 225 Cal. Rptr. 748 (1986). The court held that §1209.5 was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it created a mandatory presumption that shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, requiring him to prove that he was unable to comply with the child support order. The court relied on this Court’s decisions involving the use of mandatory presumptions in criminal prosecutions. See Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979); Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U. S. 140 (1979). The Supreme Court of California denied the State’s petition for review.

My obligation as a Circuit Justice in considering a stay application under 28 U. S. C. § 2101(f) and Rule 44 of this Court is “to determine whether four Justices would vote to grant certiorari, to balance the so-called ‘stay equities,’ and to give some consideration as to predicting the final outcome of the case in this Court.” Gregory-Portland Independent School District v. United States, 448 U. S. 1342 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). These factors lead me to conclude that the request for a stay should be granted.

I have serious doubts about the validity of the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion in light of this Court’s nearly unanimous decision in United States v. Rylander, 460 U. S. 752 (1983). In Rylander, this Court held that an alleged con-temner has the burden of showing a current inability to comply with a court order, and that a contemner must overcome a presumption of ability to comply with a court order. Moreover, the decision of the California Court of Appeal that the State must prove a parent’s ability to comply with a child support order has far-reaching implications for the enforcement of child support obligations. I think it fair to say, therefore, that at least four Justices would vote to grant certiorari. Furthermore, given this Court’s holding in Rylander, I conclude that applicant is likely to prevail on the merits.

Finally, the balance of equities clearly weighs in favor of a stay. The father is required merely to comply with an admittedly valid child support obligation. The decision of the California Court of Appeal, however, will make it far more difficult for the State of California to enforce child support payments. As even the Court of Appeal observes, its judgment permits recalcitrant parents to “literally ‘sit on [their] hands,’ and defend any contempt allegation by relying on the prosecution’s burden of proof.” 180 Cal. App. 3d, at 654, 225 Cal. Rptr., at 750. The burden placed on the State, custodial parents, and children is unquestionably sufficient to support a stay. Finally, because the Orange County Superior Court has not yet dismissed the judgment of contempt it appears that this case is not moot. Cf. California v. Brown 475 U. S. 1301 (1986) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers).

I therefore grant the requested stay of the enforcement of the judgment of the California Court of Appeal pending the timely filing and subsequent disposition of a writ of certiorari in this case.

It is so ordered.


text:
    KLEEM, et al. v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
    No. A-416.
    Decided December 4, 1986
   Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice.

Counsel for applicants has asked for a 60-day extension of time in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The stated reason for the request is that the case presents “important questions under the Constitution of the United States which were determined adversely to the petitioner by the court below,” and counsel desires “additional time to research and prepare the Writ of Certiorari.”

Writs of certiorari in civil cases “shall be . . . applied for within ninety days” after entry of the subject judgment, 28 U. S. C. § 2101(c), which period may be extended by a Justice of this Court (up to an additional 60 days) “for good cause shown,” ibid. Under this Court’s Rule 20.6, requests for extensions of time “are not favored.” In this case, counsel has given no reason for his request other than his desire for additional time to research constitutional issues. The same reason could be adduced in virtually all cases. It does not meet the standard of “good cause shown” for the granting of a disfavored extension. Pursuant to the Rules of this Court, the application for extension is

Denied.


text:
    LEDBETTER, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. BALDWIN et al.
    No. A-448.
    Decided December 18, 1986
   Justice Powell, Circuit Justice.

Applicant in this case is the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Human Resources. He promulgated regulations implementing 42 U. S. C. §602(a)(38) (1982 ed., Supp. III). That section alters the requirements for state plans distributing grants under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Generally, §602(a)(38) requires the States, in determining a family’s need for AFDC payments, to consider child support payments made to certain children living with the family. Respondents filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, contending that applicant’s regulations violated the Federal Constitution in two respects: the regulations took property from the children without just compensation and violated substantive due process. The District Court held in favor of respondents and declared the regulations unconstitutional. Applicant sought a stay pending appeal from the District Court. Before the District Court ruled on that motion, applicant filed a notice of appeal in this Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 1252 and 2101. Subsequently, the District Court denied applicant’s request for a stay.

Three considerations govern a Justice’s decision whether to grant an application for a stay pending appeal. First, there must be a reasonable probability that four Members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious to justify notation of probable jurisdiction. Second, there must be a significant possibility of reversal of the lower court’s decision. Finally, there must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if the lower court’s decision is not stayed. See Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 419 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1974) (Powell, J., in chambers); Graves v. Barnes, 405 U. S. 1201, 1203-1204 (1972) (Powell, J., in chambers).

Respondents concede that the case raises an issue sufficiently meritorious for the Court to note probable jurisdiction. On December 8, the Court noted probable jurisdiction in the similar cases of Kirk v. Gilliard, No. 86-564, and Bowen v. Gilliard, No. 86-509 (both on appeal from Gilliard v. Kirk, 633 F. Supp. 1529 (WDNC 1986)). My review of the papers filed with this application and in Nos. 86-564 and 86-509 convinces me that there is a significant possibility that the Court will reverse the lower court’s decision in this case. Finally, the State will suffer irreparable harm if the decision is not stayed. The State will bear the administrative costs of changing its system to comply with the District Court’s order. Even if this Court reverses the judgment of the District Court, it is unlikely that the State would be able to recover these costs. Similarly, it is unlikely that disputed payments made pursuant to the District Court’s judgment could be recovered. On the other hand, respondents argue that they will suffer irreparable injury if a stay is issued. If the Court affirms the judgment of the District Court, a stay will have deprived them of the disputed payments during the period of the Court’s consideration. If the State then pays the disputed amount with interest, as presumably it would, this may not fully compensate respondents for the difficulties caused by interruption of their income. Although respondents’ argument has some force, I conclude that the balance of irreparable injuries, coupled with the likelihood of reversal on the merits, supports a stay.

The application is granted.


text:
    OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC. v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION et al.
    No. A-480.
    Decided December 31, 1986
   Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice.

Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc., has filed with me as Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit an “Application to Stay Mandate of United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Pending Certiorari,” seeking an order under 28 U. S. C. § 2101(f) staying the full-power operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant located near Cleveland, Ohio. The order sought would remain in effect until the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issues its final decision in the pending suit filed by the applicant against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and, should the applicant be unsuccessful in that suit, until disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court.

The application must be denied. Section 2101(f) provides: “In any case in which the final judgment or decree of any court is subject to review by the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari, the execution and enforcement of such judgment or decree may be stayed for a reasonable time to enable the party aggrieved to obtain a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court.” (Emphasis added.) It is clear from this language that, even though certiorari review of interlocutory orders of federal courts is available, see 28 U. S. C. §§ 1254(1) and 1292, it is only the execution or enforcement oí final orders that is stayable under § 2101(f). See Twentieth Century Airlines, Inc. v. Ryan, 74 S. Ct. 8, 10, 98 L. Ed. 1143, 1145 (1953) (Reed, J., in chambers). In this case, the only extant order which, if stayed, could conceivably affect the full-power operation of the Perry plant, is the Sixth Circuit’s order of December 23, 1986, lifting the stay of full-power operation that it imposed on November 13, 1986. That order, however — like the stay itself — is interlocutory.

What the applicant would require in order to achieve the substantive relief that it seeks is an original writ of injunction, pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a), and this Court’s Rule 44.1, against full-power operation of the powerplant. A Circuit Justice’s issuance of such a writ— which, unlike a § 2101(f) stay, does not simply suspend judicial alteration of the status quo but grants judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower courts — demands a significantly higher justification than that described in the § 2101(f) stay cases cited by the applicant, e. g., Rostker v. Goldberg, 448 U. S. 1306, 1308 (1980) (BRENNAN, J., in chambers). The Circuit Justice’s injunctive power is to be used “‘sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances,’” Fishman v. Schaffer, 429 U. S. 1325, 1326 (1976) (Marshall, J., in chambers) (quoting Williams v. Rhodes, 89 S. Ct. 1, 2, 21 L. Ed. 2d 69, 70 (1968) (Stewart, J., in chambers)), and only where the legal rights at issue are “indisputably clear,” Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 409 U. S. 1235 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). Moreover, the applicant must demonstrate that the injunc-tive relief is “necessary or appropriate in aid of [the Court’s] jurisdiction].” 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a). I will not consider counsel to have asked for such extraordinary relief where, as here, he has neither specifically requested it nor addressed the peculiar requirements for its issuance.

The application for stay is denied.