author: Justice Kennedy Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Rehnquist,

text:
    BENDIX AUTOLITE CORP. v. MIDWESCO ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.
    No. 87-367.
    Argued March 23, 1988
    Decided June 17, 1988

      Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, White, MARSHALL, Blackmun, Stevens, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 895. Rehnquist, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 898.

      Noel C. Crowley argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was James T. Murray.

      Ira J. Bomstein argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief for Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., was Harvey J. Barnett.

   Justice Kennedy

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Ohio recognizes a 4-year statute of limitations in actions for breach of contract or fraud. The statute is tolled, however, for any period that a person or corporation is not “present” in the State. To be present in Ohio, a foreign corporation must appoint an agent for service of process, which operates as consent to the general jurisdiction of the Ohio courts. Applying well-settled constitutional principles, we find the Ohio statute that suspends limitations protection for out-of-state entities is a violation of the Commerce Clause.

I — I

Underlying the constitutional question presented by the Ohio statute of limitations rules is a rather ordinary contract dispute. In 1974, Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., agreed with Bendix Autolite Corporation to deliver and install a boiler system at a Bendix facility in Fostoria, Ohio. Dissatisfied with the work, Bendix claimed that the boiler system had been installed improperly and that it was insufficient to produce the quantity of steam specified in the contract. This diversity action was filed against Midwesco in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in 1980. Bendix is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio; Midwesco is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois.

When Midwesco asserted the Ohio statute of limitations as a'defense, Bendix responded that the statutory period had not elapsed because under Ohio law running of the time is suspended, or tolled, for claims against entities that are not within the State and have not designated an agent for service of process. Midwesco replied that this tolling provision violated both the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The District Court dismissed the action, finding that the Ohio tolling statute constituted an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the Ohio statute constituted discrimination in violation of the Commerce Clause because it required a foreign corporation to choose between “ ‘exposing itself to personal jurisdiction in [state] courts by complying with the tolling statute, or, by refusing to comply, to remain liable in perpetuity for all lawsuits containing state causes of action filed against it in [the State].”’ 820 F. 2d 186, 188 (1987) (quoting McKinley v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., 575 F. Supp. 942, 945 (Idaho 1983)). The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that an agent for service of process could have been appointed by Midwesco either in the contract or by giving notice to the Ohio Secretary of State. Bendix appealed, and we noted probable jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of the Ohio tolling statute. 484 U. S. 923 (1987). We now affirm.

I — I hH

Where the burden of a state regulation falls on interstate commerce, restricting its flow in a manner not applicable to local business and trade, there may be either a discrimination that renders the regulation invalid without more, or cause to weigh and assess the State’s putative interests against the interstate restraints to determine if the burden imposed is an unreasonable one. See Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 476 U. S. 573, 578-579 (1986). The Ohio statute before us might have been held to be a discrimination that invalidates without extended inquiry. We choose, however, to assess the interests of the State, to demonstrate that its legitimate sphere of regulation is not much advanced by the statute while interstate commerce is subject to substantial restraints. We find that the burden imposed on interstate commerce by the tolling statute exceeds any local interest that the State might advance.

The burden the tolling statute places on interstate commerce is significant. Midwesco has no corporate office in Ohio, is not registered to do business there, and has not appointed an agent for service of process in the State. To gain the protection of the limitations period, Midwesco would have had to appoint a resident agent for service of process in Ohio and subject itself to the general jurisdiction of the Ohio courts. This jurisdiction would extend to any suit against Midwesco, whether or not the transaction in question had any connection with Ohio. The designation of an agent subjects the foreign corporation to the general jurisdiction of the Ohio courts in matters to which Ohio’s tenuous relation would not otherwise extend. Cf. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286 (1980). The Ohio statutory scheme thus forces a foreign corporation to choose between exposure to the general jurisdiction of Ohio courts or forfeiture of the limitations defense, remaining subject to suit in Ohio in perpetuity. Requiring a foreign corporation to appoint an agent for service in all cases and to defend itself with reference to all transactions, including those in which it did not have the minimum contacts necessary for supporting personal jurisdiction, is a significant burden. See Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U. S. 102, 114 (1987).

Although statute of limitations defenses are not a fundamental right, Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U. S. 304, 314 (1945), it is obvious that they are an integral part of the legal system and are relied upon to project the liabilities of persons and corporations active in the commercial sphere. The State may not withdraw such defenses on conditions repugnant to the Commerce Clause. Where a State denies ordinary legal defenses or like privileges to out-of-state persons or corporations engaged in commerce, the state law will be reviewed under the Commerce Clause to determine whether the denial is discriminatory on its face or an impermissible burden on commerce. The State may not condition the exercise of the defense on the waiver or relinquishment of rights that the foreign corporation would otherwise retain. Cf. Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282 (1921); Allenberg Cotton Co. v. Pittman, 419 U. S. 20 (1974).

The ability to execute service of process on foreign corporations and entities is an important factor to consider in assessing the local interest in subjecting out-of-state entities to requirements more onerous than those imposed on domestic parties. It is true that serving foreign corporate defendants may be more arduous than serving domestic corporations or foreign corporations with a designated agent for service, and we have held for equal protection purposes that a State rationally may make adjustments for this difference by curtailing limitations protection for absent foreign corporations. G. D. Searle & Co. v. Cohn, 455 U. S. 404 (1982). Nevertheless, state interests that are legitimate for equal protection or due process purposes may be insufficient to withstand Commerce Clause scrutiny.

In the particular case before us, the Ohio tolling statute must fall under the Commerce Clause. Ohio cannot justify its statute as a means of protecting its residents from corporations who become liable for acts done within the State but later withdraw from the jurisdiction, for it is conceded by all parties that the Ohio long-arm statute would have permitted service on Midwesco throughout the period of limitations. The Ohio statute of limitations is tolled only for those foreign corporations that do not subject themselves to the general jurisdiction of Ohio courts. In this manner the Ohio statute imposes a greater burden on out-of-state companies than it does on Ohio companies, subjecting the activities of foreign and domestic corporations to inconsistent regulations. CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 481 U. S. 69, 87-89 (1987).

The suggestion that Midwesco had the simple alternatives of designating an agent for service of process in its contract with Bendix or tendering an agency appointment to the Ohio Secretary of State is not persuasive. Initially, there is no statutory support for either option, and it is speculative that either device would have satisfied the Ohio requirements for the continued running of the limitations period. In any event, a designation with the Ohio Secretary of State of an agent for the service of process likely would have subjected Midwesco to the general jurisdiction of Ohio courts over transactions in which Ohio had no interest. As we have already concluded, this exaction is an unreasonable burden on commerce.

Finally, Bendix argues that if we find the Ohio statute is unconstitutional, our ruling should be applied prospectively only, and not to the parties in this case. See Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97, 106 (1971); Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50, 88 (1982). The Sixth Circuit refiised to consider the argument because it was raised for the first time in Bendix’s reply brief. 820 F. 2d, at 189. As the argument was not presented to the courts below, it will not be considered here. Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee, 459 U. S. 87, 104-105 (1982) (Blackmun, J., concurring in part).

Affirmed.

Justice Scalia,

concurring in the judgment.

I cannot confidently assess whether the Court’s evaluation and balancing of interests in this case is right or wrong. Although the Court labels the effect of exposure to the general jurisdiction of Ohio’s courts “a significant burden” on commerce, I am not sure why that is. In precise terms, it is the burden of defending in Ohio (rather than some other forum) any lawsuit having all of the following features: (1) the plaintiff desires to bring it in Ohio, (2) it has so little connection to Ohio that service could not otherwise be made under Ohio’s long-arm statute, and (3) it has a great enough connection to Ohio that it is not subject to dismissal on forum non con-veniens grounds. The record before us supplies no indication as to how many suits fit this description (even the present suit is not an example since appellee Midwesco Enterprises was subject to long-arm service, ante, at 894), and frankly I have no idea how one would go about estimating the number. It may well be “significant,” but for all we know it is “negligible.”

A person or firm that takes the other alternative, by declining to appoint a general agent for service; will remain theoretically subject to suit in Ohio (as the Court says) “in perpetuity” — at least as far as the statute of limitations is concerned. But again, I do not know how we assess how significant a burden this is, unless anything that is theoretically perpetual must be significant. It seems very unlikely that anyone would intentionally wait to sue later rather than sooner — not only because the prospective defendant may die or dissolve, but also because prejudgment interest is normally not awarded, and the staleness of evidence generally harms the party with the burden of proof. The likelihood of an unintentionally delayed suit brought under this provision that could not be brought without it seems not enormously large. Moreover, whatever the likelihood is, it does not seem terribly plausible that any real-world deterrent effect on interstate transactions will be produced by the incremental cost of having to defend a delayed suit rather than a timely suit. But the point is, it seems to me we can do no more than speculate.

On the other side of the scale, the Court considers the benefit of the Ohio scheme to local interests. These are, presumably, to enable the preservation of claims against defendants who have placed themselves beyond the personal jurisdiction of Ohio courts, and (by encouraging appointment of an agent) to facilitate service upon out-of-state defendants who might otherwise be difficult to locate. See G. D. Searle & Co. v. Cohn, 455 U. S. 404, 410 (1982) (it is “a reasonable assumption that unrepresented foreign corporations, as a general rule, may not be so easy to find and serve”). We have no way of knowing how often these ends are in fact achieved, and the Court thus says little about them except to call them “an important factor to consider.” Ante, at 893.

Having evaluated the interests on both sides as roughly as this, the Court then proceeds to judge which is more important. This process is ordinarily called “balancing,” Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137, 142 (1970), but the scale analogy is not really appropriate, since the interests on both sides are incommensurate. It is more like judging whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy. All I am really persuaded of by the Court’s opinion is that the burdens the Court labels “significant” are more determinative of its decision than the benefits it labels “important.” Were it not for the brief implication that there is here a discrimination unjustified by any state interest, see ante, at 894, I suggest an opinion could as persuasively have been written coming out the opposite way. We sometimes make similar “balancing” judgments in determining how far the needs of the State can intrude upon the liberties of the individual, see, e. g., Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 324 (1988), but that is of the essence of the courts’ function as the nonpolitical branch. Weighing the governmental interests of a State against the needs of interstate commerce is, by contrast, a task squarely within the responsibility of Congress, see U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, and “ill suited to the judicial function.” CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 481 U. S. 69, 95 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).

I would therefore abandon the “balancing” approach to these negative Commerce Clause cases, first explicitly adopted 18 years ago in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., supra, and leave essentially legislative judgments to the Congress. Issues already decided I would leave untouched, but would adopt for the future an analysis more appropriate to our role and our abilities. This does no damage to the interests protected by the doctrine of stare decisis. Since the outcome of any particular still-undecided issue under the current methodolgy is in my view not predictable — except within the broad range that would in any event come out the same way under the test I would apply — no expectations can possibly be upset. To the contrary, the ultimate objective of the rule of stare decisis will be furthered. Because the outcome of the test I would apply is considerably more clear, confident expectations will more readily be able to be entertained.

In my view, a state statute is invalid under the Commerce Clause if, and only if, it accords discriminatory treatment to interstate commerce in a respect not required to achieve a lawful state purpose. When such a validating purpose exists, it is for Congress and not us to determine it is not significant enough to justify the burden on commerce. The Ohio tolling statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2305.15 (Supp. 1987), is on its face discriminatory because it applies only to out-of-state corporations. That facial discrimination cannot be justified on the basis that “it advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives,” New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach, ante, at 278. A tolling statute that operated only against persons beyond the reach of Ohio’s long-arm statute, or against all persons that could not be found for mail service, would be narrowly tailored to advance the legitimate purpose of preserving claims; but the present statute extends the time for suit even against corporations which (like Midwesco Enterprises) are fully suable within Ohio, and readily reachable through the mails.

Because the present statute discriminates against interstate commerce by applying a disadvantageous rule against nonresidents for no valid state purpose that requires such a rule, I concur in the judgment that the Ohio statute violates the Commerce Clause.

Chief Justice Rehnquist,

dissenting.

This case arises because of two peculiar, if not unique, rules of Ohio law. The first is that even though a foreign corporation may be subject to process under the state “long-arm” statute, it is nonetheless not “present” in the State for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations. The second is that a foreign corporation installing machinery or equipment sold by it in interstate commerce is not required to appoint a statutory agent in order to transact business in Ohio. Ohio Rev. Code § 1703.02 (Supp. 1987). The Court dwells heavily upon the first peculiarity of Ohio law, but makes no mention of the second.

Midwesco agreed to deliver and install a boiler system at a Bendix plant in Fostoria, Ohio. On the basis of the sparse record before us, it is fair to say that while the sale may have been a transaction in interstate commerce, there is no reason at all to think that the installation was such. Cases such as Allenberg Cotton Co. v. Pittman, 419 U. S. 20 (1974), and Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282 (1921), on which the Court relies, deal with transactions respecting goods which are “in the stream of interstate commerce.” 419 U. S., at 30. A State may not require licen-sure of a foreign corporation which seeks only to engage in this sort of transaction. But a State may require licensure when a foreign corporation engages in intrastate commerce. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc., 366 U. S. 276 (1961). And where a foreign corporation is engaged in both interstate and intrastate commerce in a particular commodity, a State may require licensure in order to sue in connection with an intrastate aspect of the business. Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen, 322 U. S. 202 (1944).

Thus, Midwesco’s immunity from Ohio’s requirement that foreign corporations appoint a statutory agent before doing business in the State is not by reason of any federal constitutional right, but by reason of a provision of the Ohio statutes. And if Ohio could have insisted that Midwesco appoint a statutory agent before it engaged in that portion of its transaction with Bendix which was intrastate commerce, I see no reason why it may not also treat Midwesco as it would treat any other entity which has done intrastate business in Ohio, incurred liability, and thereafter withdrawn from the State. Ohio seeks to do no more, I think, when it applies its tolling statute to Bendix’s action against Midwesco under these circumstances. I see no discrimination against interstate commerce here, and I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

       Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2305.09 (1981) provides in pertinent part:
      “An action for any of the following causes shall be brought within four years after the cause thereof accrued:
      “(C) For relief on the ground of fraud.”
      Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1302.98 (1979) proyides in pertinent part:
      “(A) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. By the original agreement the parties may reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year but may not extend it.
      “(B) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach.”
      Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2305.15 (Supp. 1987) provides:
      “When a cause of action accrues against a person, if he is out of the state, has absconded, or conceals himself, the period of limitation for the commencement of the action as provided in sections 2305.04 to 2305.14, 1302.98, and 1304.29 of the Revised Code, does not begin to run until he comes into the state or while he is so absconded or concealed. After the cause of action accrues if he departs from the state, absconds, or conceals himself, the time of his absence or concealment shall not be computed as any part of a period within which the action must be brought.”

       Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2307.38.2 (1981) provides in pertinent part:
      “(A) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent, as to cause an action arising from the person’s:
      “(1) Transacting any business in this state;
      “(2) Contracting to supply services or goods in this state;
      “(3) Causing tortious injury by act or omission in this state;
      “(B) When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a cause of action arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against him.”
      Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1703.04.1 (1985), provides in pertinent part:
      “(A) Every foreign corporation for profit that is licensed to transact business in this state, and every foreign nonprofit corporation that is licensed to exercise its corporate privileges in this state, shall have and maintain an agent, sometimes referred to as the ‘designated agent,’ upon whom process against such corporation may be served within this state. . . .
      “(H) Process may be served upon a foreign corporation by delivering a copy of it to its designated agent, if a natural person, or by delivering a copy of it at the address of its agent in this state, as such address appears upon the record in the office of the secretary of state.
      “(I) This section does not limit or affect the right to serve process upon a foreign corporation in any other manner permitted by law.”
      In part to comply with Commerce Clause concerns, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1703.02 (1985), exempts corporations engaged solely in interstate commerce from the registration requirement:
      “Sections 1703.01 to 1703.31, inclusive, of the Revised Code do not apply to corporations engaged in this state solely in interstate commerce, including the installation, demonstration, or repair of machinery or equipment sold by them in interstate commerce . . . .”
      Section 1703.02 does not, however, remove foreign corporations from the reach of the tolling provision.

       In Searle, we declined to reach the issue whether the New Jersey tolling statute impermissibly burdened interstate commerce, finding that the issue was “clouded by an ambiguity in state law,” and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. 455 U. S., at 413-414. The Court of Appeals then remanded to the District Court “for further consideration of the Commerce Clause issue.” Hopkins v. Kelsey-Hayes, Inc., 677 F. 2d 301, 302 (CA3 1982). Before the District Court ruled, however, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared its tolling statute unconstitutional under a Commerce Clause analysis as a forced licensure provision, a decision we declined to review. Coons v. American Honda Motor Co., 94 N. J. 307, 463 A. 2d 921 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1123 (1985).


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    MAY 16, 1988
    No. 86-1857.
    Continental Bank International v. City of New York, Department of Finance.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. Motion of appellant for leave to file Rule 28.1 listing under seal granted. Appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

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


text:
    No. 87-1376.
    City of Euclid, Ohio v. Shank, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1601.
    Bell, Individually and dba Wes Outdoor Advertising Co. v. New Jersey et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 3d Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1619.
    Green v. Watertown Equipment Co. et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 8th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1441.
    Evers v. Board of Medical Examiners et al.
   Appeal from Ct. Civ. App. Ala. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 87-6481.
    Salazar v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ohio, Lucas County, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 87-1542.
    Ewing v. Arizona et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ariz. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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


text:
    No. 87-1597.
    Alabama Power Co. v. Capps, Administratrix of the Estate of Capps.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ala. dismissed for want of properly presented federal question.


text:
    No. 87-1653.
    Varney et al. v. Florida Bar et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 86-7126.
    Houston v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of the position presently asserted by the Attorney General of Alabama in his motion filed April 14, 1988.

Justice Blackmun dissents.


text:
    No. 87-1243.
    United States v. A & B Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider the question of mootness.


text:
    No. 87-1425.
    Bay v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Mathews v. United States, 485 U. S. 58 (1988).


text:
    No.-.
    No.-.
    No.-.
    Ekin et al. v. Board of Commissioners of the County of Allegheny et al.; Poe v. United States; and Williams et al. v. Washington et al.
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. A-831 (87-6873).
    Aranda v. Texas.
   Application to continue the stay of mandate of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending this Court’s action on the petition for writ of certiorari. If the petition for writ of certiorari is denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue in effect pending the issuance of the mandate of this Court.


text:
    No. D-692.
    In re Disbarment of Kalk.
    [For earlier order herein, see 485 U. S. 984.]
   Motion to defer proceedings in this matter granted.


text:
    No. D-707.
    In re Disbarment of Blecher.
   It is ordered that Sam Blecher, of Spring Valley, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-708.
    In re Disbarment of Lewis.
   It is ordered that Samuel H. Lewis, of Pompano Beach, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 94,
    Orig.
    South Carolina v. Baker, Secretary of the Treasury.
    [For earlier decision herein, see, e. g., 485 U. S. 505.]
   Request of the Honorable Matthew J. Jasen to be discharged as Special Master granted, and he is hereby discharged.

Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    No. 87-1428.
    Lorance et al. v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 87-1495.
    Tallahassee Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al. v. Leon County, Florida, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.

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


author: Justice Brennan,

text:
    No. 87-6702.
    Aguilar v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 11th Dist. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until June 6, 1988, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition for writ of certiorari in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan,

Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in Brown v. Herald Co., 464 U. S. 928 (1983), we would deny the petition for writ of certiorari without reaching the merits of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.


text:
    No. 87-6622.
    No. 87-6671.
    In re Martin; and In re Dennis.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 87-6616.
    In re Martin.
   Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 87-1687.
    In re Zepke.
   Petition for writ of prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 87-453.
    No. 87-464.
    Amerada Hess Corp. et al. v. Director, Division of Taxation, New Jersey Department of the Treasury; and Texaco Inc. et al. v. Director, Division of Taxation, New Jersey Department of the Treasury.
   Appeals from Sup. Ct. N. J. Probable jurisdiction noted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Reported below: 107 N. J. 307, 526 A. 2d 1029.


text:
    No. 87-1346.
    Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-1602.
    Castille, District Attorney of Philadelphia County, et al. v. Peoples.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-6431.
    Schmuck v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-6405.
    Tompkins v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.

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


text:
    No. 85-2094.
    Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Business Electronics Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-484.
    Westman Commission Co. v. Hobart International, Inc.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-794.
    Garment District, Inc. v. Belk Stores Services, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1101.
    McCabe’s Furniture, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-323.
    Sokolov v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-610.
    No. 87-728.
    Isaksen, dba Applewood Stove Works v. Vermont Castings, Inc.; and Vermont Castings, Inc. v. Isaksen, dba Applewood Stove Works.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 825 F. 2d 1158.


text:
    No. 87-1217.
    Lorenzini et ux. v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., Bergen County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1281.
    Griffin et al. v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1311.
    Lau et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1331.
    Pan-American Life Insurance Co. et al. v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1359.
    No. 87-1380.
    Demenno/Kerdoon v. United States; and Tipperary Refining Co. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 833 F. 2d 301.


text:
    No. 87-1365.
    No. 87-1409.
    No. 87-1419.
    No. 87-1446.
    No. 87-1543.
    Aiuppa v. United States; LaPietra v. United States; Cerone v. United States; Lombardo v. United States; and Rockman v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 830 F. 2d 938.


text:
    No. 87-1369.
    LaForte et al. v. Horner, Director, Office of Personnel Management, et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1373.
    Bowers et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1403.
    Freeman v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1404.
    Namer v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1424.
    No. 87-1573.
    Virginia ex rel. State Board of Elections v. Kilgore et al.; and Kilgore et al. v. Virginia ex rel. State Board of Elections et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 829 F. 2d 1319.


text:
    No. 87-1431.
    Lanzaro, Monmouth County Sheriff, et al. v. Monmouth County, New Jersey, Correctional Institutional Inmates, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1451.
    Roach v. National Transportation Safety Board et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1529.
    PSGroup v. United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Price et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1536.
    Suggs et ux. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1545.
    Cleu v. O’Connor Hospital, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1549.
    Joint Board of Control of the Flathead, Mission, and Jocko Irrigation Districts v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1550.
    Derr et al. v. Kawasaki Kisen K.K. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1552.
    Stefanou v. North River Insurance Co., Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1557.
    1000 Friends of Oregon et al. v. Wasco County Court et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1559.
    Rose v. Fultz.
   C. A- 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1561.
    Reed, District Attorney, Washington Parish, Louisiana v. Smith.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1562.
    O’Keefe v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of the Village of Flossmoor, Illinois, et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1563.
    Matt v. Larocca, Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1568.
    Allen Transformer Co. v. Ragland, Commissioner of Revenues of Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1574.
    Luhr Bros., Inc. v. Dale.
   App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1577.
    Gordon et al. v. Hunt et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1579.
    Jeffers v. Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1585.
    Gouiran v. Committee on Character and Fitness, Second Department.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1587.
    Yameen v. Massachusetts.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1590.
    Sagansky v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1592.
    Kyocera International, Inc., et al. v. Kennecott Corp.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1596.
    Nobile v. Schindler et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1606.
    Davis, Warden v. Jones.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1611.
    City of Houston et al. v. Leroy et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1612.
    Britain v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1620.
    Simmons v. Connecticut.
   App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1624.
    Jones v. Verbiest et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1633.
    Sikorski Aircraft Division, United Technologies Corp. v. Kloss et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1638.
    Larson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1662.
    Spencer v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1677.
    Angelica v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1679.
    Rivera v. Frank, Postmaster General of the United States, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1681.
    De La Fuente v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1692.
    Marotta v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1721.
    McGregor v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5205.
    Ramsey v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5726.
    Buckley v. Butler, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5982.
    Hayes v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6155.
    Grayson v. United States (two cases).
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6174.
    Iron Boy v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6183.
    Ingraham, aka MacKeil v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6234.
    Whaley v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6252.
    Morgan v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6289.
    Olmstead v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6331.
    Finney v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6354.
    Hernandez-Suazo v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6355.
    Robinson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6361.
    Owen v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6371.
    Portal v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6383.
    Pomeroy v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6384.
    Watson v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6395.
    Kimberlin v. Brewer et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6397.
    Guinn v. Guinn.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6426.
    Gibson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6433.
    Pelton v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6443.
    Gourley v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6520.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6527.
    Jones v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6549.
    Blannon v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6559.
    Flemmings v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6560.
    Pace v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6598.
    Phillippe v. Shapell Industries, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6610.
    Williams v. Christensen, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6611.
    Robinson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6621.
    Bilder v. City of Akron, Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Summit County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6626.
    Gassett v. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6629.
    Rechtmann v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6631.
    Garcia v. Turner, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6632.
    Kennison v. Vermont.
   Sup. Ct. Vt. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6635.
    Gindorf v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6637.
    Refre v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6642.
    Horton v. Tabah.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6646.
    Samuels v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6648.
    May v. Warner AMEX Cable Communications et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6649.
    Madden v. Tate, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institute.
   C. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6654.
    Sheely et al. v. University of Texas Board of Regents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6657.
    Heredia v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6658.
    Sallee v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6659.
    Van Straten v. Keene et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6660.
    Winpenny v. Winpenny.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6661.
    Baker v. Estelle, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6664.
    Reid v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6665.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6668.
    Feaster v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Summit County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6670.
    Lynch v. Johnson et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6672.
    Alberni v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6675.
    Freeman v. Jago.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6677.
    Bradley v. Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6678.
    Glivings et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6681.
    Cortez v. New Mexico.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6682.
    Keith v. New Mexico.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6683.
    Hilgert v. City of Prairie Village.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6684.
    Frederick v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6691.
    Burnside v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6692.
    Becker v. Wenco Foods/Wendy’s International Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6693.
    Bell v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6696.
    Cooke v. Bach, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6706.
    Ashley v. Koehler, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6710.
    No. 87-6711.
    Cubillos v. United States; and Zapata v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 838 F. 2d 168.


text:
    No. 87-6714.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6722.
    Robinson-Robinson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6727.
    Coleman v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6728.
    O’Neal v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6729.
    Wilson v. Maryland.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6732.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6734.
    Falcon v. Hutchison et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6736.
    Aldrich v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6739.
    Leven v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6747.
    McFarland v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6748.
    Tracy et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6750.
    Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6765.
    Abdus-Sammad v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6776.
    McGovern v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6778.
    Rhodes v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6779.
    Peters v. Richland County, South Carolina, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6781.
    Svee v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1548.
    Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Assn., International.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of Air Transport Association of America et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1321.
    Lombardfin S. p. A. et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission; and Trasatlantic Financial Co., S. A., et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
    No. 87-1368.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Reported below: 833 F. 2d 1086.


text:
    No. 87-1332.
    Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Hodel, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 87-1377.
    Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Justice White,

text:
    No. 87-1433.
    Kern Tulare Water District v. City of Bakersfield, California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

dissenting.

This Court has previously held that a municipality is immune from antitrust liability under the state-action exemption if it can demonstrate that “it is engaging in the challenged activity pursuant to a clearly expressed state policy.” Hallie v. Eau Claire, 471 U. S. 34, 40 (1985); see Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943). It is not necessary that the legislature explicitly state that it intends municipalities to engage in anticompetitive conduct pursuant to the state policy; it is enough that “anticom-petitive effects logically would result from [the] broad authority to regulate.” Hallie, supra, at 42. From these principles, I had thought it clear that an antitrust violation would be established by showing that a municipality restrained trade by acting contrary to the clearly articulated state policy. Yet the Ninth Circuit has held here that ordinary “abuses” by local authorities in the field generally covered by the state policy are matters for state tribunals and not concerns of federal antitrust policy. 828 F. 2d 514, 522 (1987).

The mischief of this unwarranted expansion of the state-action exemption can be seen in the facts of this case. All agree that an integral part of California’s state water policy is its prohibition against waste and unreasonable uses of water. Id., at 519 (citing Cal. Const., Art. 10, §2; Cal. Wáter Code Ann. §106.5 (West 1971)). Furthermore, the state policy expressly encourages municipalities to transfer water rights so as to improve the efficiency of water use. Cal. Water Code Ann. §109 (West Supp. 1987). Here, petitioner water district alleged that respondent city' controlled sources of water exceeding its annual needs, was in the business of reselling the surplus water for rural irrigation, and had entered a 35-year contract with petitioner, providing that petitioner would pay respondent $400,000 per year for 20,000 acre-feet of water per year. The water district alleged that, contrary to past years under the contract, the city refused to allow the district to transfer excess water to third parties, who evidenced their need for it by their willingness to pay. The city sent a letter explaining its stance as necessary to effectuate the contractual provision requiring that the water be used only, by the district. Because the city refused to allow the district to transfer the water to third parties and because the district did not need the water, it eventually ran into the state aqueduct, either to be wasted as runoff into the sea or to flow to communities outside of the Kern County water basin. Whatever the fate of the dumped water, petitioner alleges that the city prevented the transfer to maintain its control of the resale market for irrigation water in Kern County.

The irony of the Ninth Circuit’s decision is its bestowing of antitrust immunity for such conduct based on a state statutory scheme, which is intended to promote efficient use of water and prevent its waste. It seems questionable that the contractual prohibition of transfer rights, possibly resulting in the waste of the water and certainly preventing an efficient transfer, was the kind of action that the California Legislature contemplated when it enacted the statutory scheme. Hallie, supra, at 44. Municipal actions that contravene express limits in the state policy would not seem to be taken pursuant to a clearly articulated policy and thus would not seem to be shielded by the state-action exemption. The Ninth Circuit’s characterization of the alleged violation of state policy as an ordinary error or occasional abuse seems insufficient to insulate the municipality from liability for action that restrains competition. There seems little room in the Sherman Act’s prohibition of restraint of trade for such a forgiving rule. Because I do not believe that every municipality deserves one free anticompetitive bite, I would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 87-1560.
    Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. v. Metrix Warehouse, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of Automobile Importers of America et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1598.
    Northern Group Services, Inc., et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of Thorn Apple Valley, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1625.
    Florida v. Long.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 87-6189.
    No. 87-6287.
    No. 87-6372.
    No. 87-6601.
    No. 87-6607.
    No. 87-6627.
    No. 87-6634.
    No. 87-6636.
    No. 87-6713.
    Erickson v. Illinois. Brown v. Louisiana. DeShields v. Delaware. Nelson v. Alabama. Antwine v. Missouri. Frazier v. Georgia. Porterfield v. Tennessee. Amrine v. Missouri. Turner v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Ill.;

Sup. Ct. La.;

Sup. Ct. Del.;

Sup. Ct. Ala.;

Sup. Ct. Mo.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Tenn.;

Sup. Ct. Mo.; and

Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 87-6189, 117 Ill. 2d 271, 513 N. E. 2d 367; No. 87-6287, 514 So. 2d 99; No. 87-6372, 534 A. 2d 630; No. 87-6601, 511 So. 2d 248; No. 87-6607, 743 S. W. 2d 51; No. 87-6627, 257 Ga. 690, 362 S. E. 2d 351; No. 87-6634, 746 S. W. 2d 441; No. 87-6636, 741 S. W. 2d 665; No. 87-6713, 234 Va. 543, 364 S. E. 2d 483.

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. 87-6425.
    Fouche v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice -Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 87-820.
    No. 87-1316.
    No. 87-1329.
    No. 87-5917.
    No. 87-5983.
    No. 87-6064.
    No. 87-6074.
    No. 87-6231.
    No. 87-6232.
    No. 87-6259.
    No. 87-6392.
    No. 87-6398.
    No. 87-6402.
    No. 87-6427.
    No. 87-6488.
    Kellam et al. v. Pfeifer et al., In re Cooper, dba Larry N. Cooper the Proprietorship, Browning v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. et al., Simdram v. United States, Watson v. Missouri et al., Seaborne v. County Commissioners of Washington County, Robinson v. Amtrak Railroad Corporation et al., Cassell v. Mount Joy Mennonite Church et al., Cassell v. Charles, Mohiuddin v. California, Diggs v. Owens, Superintendent, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al., Lipsey v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al., Gentile v. Montefiore Hospital, Inc., et al., Peters v. McCutcheon et al., Hill v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections,
   484 U. S. 1052;

485 U. S. 957;

485 U. S. 963;

485 U. S. 978;

485 U. S. 964;

484 U. S. 1053;

485 U. S. 965;

485 U. S. 965;

485 U. S. 965;

485 U. S. 950;

485 U. S. 979;

485 U. S. 979;

485 U. S. 979;

485 U. S. 990; and

485 U. S. 980. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 85-1029.
    Starkman v. Marathon Oil Co. et al.,
   475 U. S. 1015. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 86-870.
    Phillips Petroleum Co. et al. v. Mississippi et al.,
   484 U. S. 469. Motions of City of Elizabeth, New Jersey, et al., Louisiana Landowners Association, Inc., and American Land Title Association for leave to file briefs as amici curiae in support of petition for rehearing denied. Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions and this petition.


text:
    No. 86-987.
    Haig et al. v. Bissonette et al.,
   485 U. S. 264. Petition for rehearing dismissed.

The Chief Justice, Justice O’Connor, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 87-688.
    Zemsky v. City of New York et al.,
   484 U. S. 965. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 87-1008.
    Hayes v. Anson et al.,
   484 U. S. 1063. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 87-1320.
    Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum,
   485 U. S. 950. Petition for rehearing and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 87-5316.
    Davis v. Xerox Corp.,
   484 U. S. 966. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    May 20, 1988
    No. 87-1349.
    County of Boulder, Colorado v. United States et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    May 23, 1988
    No. 87-1650.
    Brannon v. Randmaa.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-181.
    Dixon v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co., ante, p. 107.


text:
    No. 87-476.
    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ocean City Police Department.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co., ante, p. 107..


text:
    No. 87-761.
    WCLR Radio Station v. Rengers.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of Chamber of Commerce of the United States et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., ante, p. 128.


text:
    No. 87-1249.
    Plitt Theatres, Inc. v. Coston.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., ante, p. 128.


text:
    No.-.
    Dwyer v. Crocker National Bank et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. A-851.
    Bates v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Application for stay of mandate, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-676.
    In re Disbarment of Server.
    [For earlier order herein, see 485 U. S. 952.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-679.
    In re Disbarment of Kotsos.
   Petros A. Kotsos, of Glenview, Ill., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on March 21, 1988 [485 U. S. 952], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-683.
    In re Disbarment of Kern.
    [For earlier order herein, see 485 U. S. 953.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-685.
    In re Disbarment of Strauss.
    [For earlier order herein, see 485 U. S. 973.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. 86-1088.
    City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 485 U. S. 933.] Motion of International City Management Association et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae,. granted.


text:
    No. 87-470.
    Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. [Certiorari granted, 485 U. S. 933.] Motions of Video Software Dealers Association and PHE, Inc., for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 87-746.
    Michael H. et al. v. Gerald D.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 485 U. S. 903.] Motions of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation et al. and National Council for Children’s Rights, Inc., for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Motion of appellant Victoria D. for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted.


text:
    No. 87-821.
    No. 87-827.
    No. 87-1095.
    Pittston Coal Group et al. v. Sebben et al. McLaughlin, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. Sebben et al. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Broyles et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 484 U. S. 1058]; C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 484 U. S. 1058]; and C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 485 U. S. 987.] Motion of respondents for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 87-1818.
    Badham et al. v. Eu, Secretary of State of California, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. Motion of appellants to expedite consideration of jurisdictional statement denied.

Justice Stevens would grant this motion.


text:
    No. 87-6701.
    In re Walden.
   Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 86-1856.
    Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Kan. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 87-980.
    Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Miss. Further consideration of question of jurisdiction postponed to hearing of case on the merits.


text:
    No. 87-1206.
    Mesa et al. v. California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-1651.
    Massachusetts v. Oakes.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-1616.
    Graham et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, case consolidated with No. 87-963, Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [certiorari granted, 485 U. S. 1005], and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.

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


text:
    No. 86-1944.
    Kwoun et al. v. Southeast Missouri Professional Standards Review Organization et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1111.
    Mattner et ux., dba Mattner Farms v. Bueno et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1156.
    Gregg et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1256.
    Hydrogen Technology Corp. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1292.
    Jedlicka v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1314.
    No. 87-1323.
    No. 87-1324.
    No. 87-1553.
    No. 87-6597.
    Russo v. United States; Persico v. United States; Persico et al. v. United States; Cataldo v. United States; and McIntosh v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 832 F. 2d 705.


text:
    No. 87-1575.
    Orion Corp. v. Washington et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1627.
    Nash et al. v. Houston Civic Center.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1628.
    Smith et al. v. Michigan Department of Treasury et al.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1634.
    Phototron Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1635.
    Alvarez, for use and Benefit of American Home Insurance Co. v. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1636.
    Richmond Newspapers, Inc., et al. v. Lipscomb.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1637.
    Zant, Warden v. Corn.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1641.
    Scott v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1644.
    Continental Electric Co. et al. v. American Employers’ Insurance Co.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1659.
    Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Formby.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1678.
    Johnson, Warden v. Demos.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1689.
    Chandler v. Chandler et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1749.
    Hampton v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1766.
    Jaramillo-Montoya v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5946.
    Johnson v. Artim Transportation System, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6151.
    Cobb v. McMackin, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6490.
    Fabbri v. Sheraton Plaza la Reina Hotel.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6521.
    Qualman v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6575.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6628.
    Diehl v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6688.
    Maggard v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6689.
    Sindram v. W & W Associates, Inc.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6695.
    Yates v. Traughber, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Employment Security, et al.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6705.
    Saahir v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6707.
    Crim v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6708.
    Heard v. Sikes et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6709.
    Kortzeborn v. Vylon Management Corp. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6715.
    Seltzer v. Office of Personnel Management.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6718.
    Abdullah v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6719.
    Cooper v. City of Ocala, Florida, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6720.
    Gardner v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6721.
    Mudd et al. v. Moore, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6733.
    Grays v. Hughes et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6742.
    Powell v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6743.
    Sailor v. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6755.
    Dorsey v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6764.
    Ayala v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 13th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6773.
    Shariff v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6775.
    Noll v. Kimmel et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6777.
    Parker v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6783.
    Quintero-Rodriquez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6786.
    Jordan v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6802.
    Long v. Maryland.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6803.
    Castaneda v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6804.
    Lawrence v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6805.
    Alvarez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6806.
    McCann v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6819.
    Mosquera Herrera v. United States.
   C. Á. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6821.
    Moon v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6859.
    Riddick v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-600.
    Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. et al. v. Otto.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motions of National Association of Life Companies, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, American Council of Life Insurance, Association of California Life Insurance Companies,, and National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Associations for leave to file briefs as amici curia,e granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1458.
    Anderson et al. v. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 87-1626.
    Alexander Ranch, Inc., et al. v. Central Appraisal District of Erath County, Texas, et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 11th Dist. Motion of Texas for leave to intervene granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1671.
    Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jackson.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6096.
    No. 87-6602.
    Kyles v. Louisiana. Gates v. California.
   Sup. Ct. La.; and

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 87-6096, 513 So. 2d 265; No. 87-6602, 43 Cal. 3d 1168, 743 P. 2d 301.

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. 87-1471.
    No. 87-6113.
    No. 87-6195.
    No. 87-6532.
    Franklin v. Office of Personnel Management, Booker v. Mississippi, Cazares v. Refugia Sandoval, Fields v. Harrison et al.,
   485 U. S. 984;

485 U. S. 982;

485 U. S. 908; and

485 U. S. 1013. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 87-6274.
    Loftis v. Leeke, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.,
   485 U. S. 966. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 87-6525.
    Cordeiro v. Conner et al.,
   485 U. S. 1013. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    May 24, 1988
    No. 87-1664.
    Stream et al. v. Auster Oil & Gas, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    May 31, 1988
    No. 85-1429.
    American General Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Miller et vir.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Miss, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Justice O’Connor, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy would dismiss the appeal with respect to Question 1 for want of a substantial federal question; with respect to Question 2, they wouid dismiss the ap.peal for want of a properly presented federal question. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision^of this case.


text:
    No. 85-1799.
    Treadwell Ford, Inc. v. Campbell et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ala. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Justice O’Connor, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy would dismiss the appeal with respect to Question 1 for want of a substantial federal question; with respect to Question 2, they would dismiss the appeal for want of a properly presented federal question. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    No. 86-107.
    Mobile Dodge, Inc. v. Alford.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ala. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Justice O’Connor, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy would dismiss the appeal with respect to Question 1 for want of a substantial federal question; with respect to Question 2, they would dismiss the appeal for want of a properly presented federal question. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    No. 87-294.
    Alabama Power Co. v. Cantrell.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ala. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 87-1361.
    Diamond et al. v. Cuomo, Governor of New York, et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 87-1595.
    Halloran v. New York.
   Appeal from App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 87-1658.
    Cagle v. Colorado.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Colo, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 87-1670.
    Durjak v. Illinois.
   Appeal from App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6741.
    Trombley v. Vermont.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Vt. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6812.
    Richardson v. Arnold et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 6th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1699.
    Elliott, Individually and as Next Friend of Elliott, a Minor v. Lewin et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Tex. Motion of appellee Hillcrest Baptist Hospital for damages and double costs denied. Motion of appellee Marcial Lewin for damages and double costs denied. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6613.
    Swift v. Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ariz. dismissed for want of properly presented federal question.


text:
    No. 86-6550.
    Durns et al. v. Bureau of Prisons et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States Dept. of Justice v. Julian, ante, p. 1.

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


text:
    No.-.
    Jones v. Alabama.
   Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without an affidavit of indigency executed by the petitioner granted.


text:
    No. A-892 (87-7052).
    Fleming v. Zant, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending the disposition by this Court of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice O’Connor would deny the application for stay.


text:
    No. D-681.
    In re Disbarment of Feldman.
    [For earlier order herein, see 485 U. S. 952.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-690.
    In re Disbarment of Dorsey.
    [For earlier order herein, see 485 U. S. 974.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-709.
    In re Disbarment of Kantor.
   It is ordered that Robert J. Kantor, of Asbury Park, N. J., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable Within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-710.
    In re Disbarment of Ford.
   It is ordered that Terrence J. Ford, of Santa Rosa, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-711.
    In re Disbarment of Harper.
   It is ordered that Harvey William Harper, of Los Angeles, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-712.
    In re Disbarment of Brill.
   It is ordered that Abraham J. Brill, of New York, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 111,
    Orig.
    Delaware v. New York.
   Motion for leave to file bill of complaint granted. Defendant allowed 60 days in which to file an answer. Motion for temporary restraining order denied.


text:
    No. 86-422.
    Carpenter et al. v. United States,
   484 U. S. 19. Motion of petitioner Carpenter for leave to proceed in forma pauperis nunc pro tunc denied. Motion of petitioner Carpenter for appointment of counsel nunc pro tunc denied.

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


text:
    No. 87-470.
    No. 87-614.
    Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana et al. Sappenfield et al. v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. [Certiorari granted, 485 U. S. 933]; and Ct. App. Ind. [Certiorari granted, 485 U. S. 933.] Motion of American Civil Liberties Union et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in No. 87-470 granted. Motions of Spartacist League et al. and American Booksellers Association et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 87-826.
    No. 87-1101.
    Goldberg et al. v. Sweet, Director, Illinois Department of Revenue, et al.; and GTE Sprint Communications Corp. v. Sweet, Director, Illinois Department of Revenue, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 484 U. S. 1057.] Motion of appellant GTE Sprint Communications Corp; for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 87-996.
    Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, as Receiver of FirstSouth, F. A.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 485 U. S. 933.] Motion of Joseph M. Hudspeth for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for additional time for oral argument denied. Motion of United States League of Savings Institutions for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for additional time for oral argument is denied.


text:
    No. 87-1888.
    Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner to expedite consideration of the petition for certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6827.
    In re Downs.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 86-1569.
    Aluminum Company of America v. Sliman et ux.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-205.
    No. 87-206.
    No. 87-371.
    Alaska Miners Assn. v. Trustees for Alaska et al.; Alaska v. Trustees for Alaska et al.; and Trustees for Alaska et al. v. Alaska et al.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 736 P. 2d 324.


text:
    No. 87-1021.
    Playtex Holdings, Inc. v. O’Gilvie et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1312.
    Pawnee et al. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1465.
    Piccolo v. United States..
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1487.
    No. 87-1506.
    No. 87-1510.
    No. 87-1551.
    Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. Federal Communications Commission et al.; Corporation for Public Broadcasting et al. v. Century Communications Corp. et al.; National Association of Broadcasters v. Century Communications Corp. et al.; and Association of Independent Television Stations, Inc. v. Century Communications Corp. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 266 U. S. App. D. C. 228, 835 F. 2d 292, and 267 U. S. App. D. C. 94, 837 F. 2d 517.


text:
    No. 87-1493.
    Lafaurie v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1507.
    Yashon v. Hunt et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1535.
    John Hancock Variable Life Insurance Co. v. Pierce.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1572.
    Benacquista, Polsinelli & Serafini Management Corp. v. Save the Pine Bush, Inc., et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1576.
    Upadhya v. Langenberg et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1618.
    Lewicki v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1652.
    Adam v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1655.
    Bobb et al. v. Ostlund.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1665.
    McCarty Ranch Trust et al. v. Craig, Trustee of Cassidy Land & Cattle Co., Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1666.
    Arriaga-Zayas et al. v. International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union, Puerto Rico Council Local 600-601, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1672.
    Lee Seck Mon et al. v. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Guess?, Inc., et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1680.
    Mills et al. v. Franco Food Equipment, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1682.
    Chrysler Workers Assn. et al. v. Chrysler Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1683.
    Jabe, Warden v. Alexander.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1695.
    Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Chevron Transport Corp. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1741.
    Corbell et al. v. Stevens.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1806.
    Mairone v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6235.
    Creel v. Pfeiffer.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6453.
    Economou et ux. v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6491.
    Pavlico v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6581.
    Lopez Andino v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6633.
    Hernandez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6643.
    Jones v. Secretary of Treasury.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6650.
    Watson v. Jarvis, Sheriff, DeKalb County, Georgia.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6697.
    Causey v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6738.
    Hyde v. Hyde.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Hist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6761.
    Lariscey v. United States et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6766.
    Shanahan v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6767.
    Rolling v. Clarke, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6769.
    Creel v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6770.
    Olson et al. v. Chanute Production Credit Assn.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6810.
    Madson v. Colorado.
   Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6818.
    Matt v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6822.
    Reid v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6825.
    Vidal v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6829.
    Boldin v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6831.
    Levy v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6832.
    Agyen v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6835.
    Bontempo v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6842.
    Fults v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6844.
    Holzer v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6849.
    Garner v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6852.
    Sebetich v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6854.
    Mesa v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6862.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6865.
    Radabaugh v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6904.
    Boudette v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6907.
    Abdrabboh v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-159.
    Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 87-1150.
    Barry, Mayor of the District of Columbia, et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1196.
    Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Nielsen.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 87-1518.
    Florida v. Morgan.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1520.
    No. 87-6472.
    No. 87-6686.
    No. 87-6744.
    No. 87-6758.
    Wiley v. Mississippi. Banks v. Oklahoma. Bell v. Alabama. Musgrove v. Alabama. Collier v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Miss.;

Ct. Crim. App. Okla.;

Ct. Crim. App. Ala.;

Sup. Ct. Ala.; and

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 87-1520, 517 So. 2d 1373; No. 87-6686, 518 So. 2d 840; No. 87-6744, 519 So. 2d 586; No. 87-6758, 103 Nev. 563, 747 P. 2d 225.

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. 87-6422.
    Lewis v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted of robbery and attempted first-degree murder, charges that stemmed from the robbery of a gas-station attendant. At trial, he sought to suppress statements he had made while in custody, claiming that his Miranda rights were violated. The pertinent facts are that petitioner, once in custody, was given Miranda warnings and immediately invoked his right to remain silent. The police did not try to question him, but instead took him to a room where he was shown a videotape of the robbery, which also included footage of the shooting of the attendant. While viewing the videotape, petitioner made several incriminating statements to an officer. The state trial court denied petitioner’s motion to suppress the statements, and its decision was affirmed on appeal. 509 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. App. 1987). Petitioner argued that being confronted with evidence of this nature is the “functional equivalent” of express questioning, which is impermissible once a person in custody has invoked his right to remain silent, but the Florida Court of Appeal disagreed.

We have stated that “interrogation” under Miranda does include conditions that are its “functional equivalent,” that is, “any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 301 (1980) (footnotes- omitted). We also have observed that a “psychological ploy” of any significance would also be treated as the “functional equivalent” of interrogation. Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U. S. 520, 526 (1987).

Whether police may confront a suspect with evidence against him, outside the range of normal arrest and charging procedures, without engaging in the “functional equivalent” of interrogation is a substantial question in light of Innis. In addition, the federal and state courts disagree over the issue. Some courts, for example, have found an interrogation to have occurred when the police, in booking a suspect, merely advised him of the charges and then described the evidence against him in some detail. Wainwright v. State, 504 A. 2d 1096, 1102-1103 (Del. 1986); Koza v. State, 102 Nev. 181, 183-188, 718 P. 2d 671, 673-676 (1986); State v. Quinn, 64 Md. App. 668, 671-674, 498 A. 2d 676, 677-679 (1985). Other courts have held to the contrary. United States v. Pheaster, 544 F. 2d 353, 366-368 (CA9 1976); United States v. Hodge, 487 F. 2d 945, 946-947 (CA5 1973). On the other side of the issue, moreover, some courts have treated more adventurous police practices, which are in no sense any part of the formal arrest or charging procedures, as the “functional equivalent” of interrogation. In People v. Ferro, 63 N. Y. 2d 316, 472 N. E. 2d 13 (1984), for example, a Miranda violation was found where the police took furs allegedly stolen by the suspect and spread them out, without a word, in front of the suspect’s cell for him to ponder. See also Bryant v. State, 49 Md. App. 272, 431 A. 2d 714 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U. S. 949 (1982). The decision below in this case is to the contrary. I would grant certiorari to consider the construction of Innis rendered by the court below and to resolve the significant disagreement on this general issue among the state and federal courts, which has led those courts both to handicap the police in pursuing some apparently legitimate law enforcement practices and to approve the use of other ploys that have nothing to do with the usual and accepted procedures for arresting and charging a suspect.


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 87-6746.
    Miranda v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view 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, 231-241 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting), I would grant the petition for writ of certiorari. But even if I did not hold this view, I would grant the petition because it raises the question whether the State may introduce evidence of unadjudicated criminal conduct at the sentencing phase of a capital trial.

A jury convicted petitioner Adam Miranda of first-degree murder and assault with intent to commit murder. At the sentencing phase of the trial, the only evidence the State introduced to support the death penalty concerned a wholly unrelated murder. Petitioner had been charged with committing this murder, but had not been tried for or convicted of the crime. Moreover, the trial court refused to instruct the jury that it could consider the evidence of the unrelated murder in making a sentencing determination only if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner had committed the offense. The jury imposed the death sentence.

I have stated twice this Term that the Court should consider the question whether the admission of evidence of unadjudicated criminal conduct at the penalty phase of a capital trial violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Williams v. Lynaugh, 484 U. S. 935 (1987) (dissenting from denial of certiorari); Devier v. Kemp, 484 U. S. 948 (1987) (dissenting from denial of certio-rari). I have noted that this question has prompted a number of conflicting decisions nationwide. Compare State v. Bobo, 727 S. W. 2d 945, 952-953 (Tenn.) (unadjudicated-crimes evidence not admissible), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 872 (1987), and State v. Bartholomew, 101 Wash. 2d 631, 640-642, 683 P. 2d 1079, 1085-1086 (1984) (en banc) (same), with Milton v. State, 599 S. W. 2d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (en banc) (unadjudicated-crimes evidence admissible). In addition, I have argued that the admission of unadjudicated-crimes evidence at the sentencing phase of a capital trial is difficult to reconcile with the unique constitutional concern for reliability in death sentencing proceedings. This case again demonstrates that the Court should resolve this important question.


text:
    No. 87-6752.
    Gaunce v. United States; Gaunce v. DeVincentis et al.; and Gaunce v. National Transportation Safety Board et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 87-1139.
    No. 87-1351.
    No. 87-6282.
    No. 87-6449.
    No. 87-6464.
    No. 87-6595.
    No. 87-6666.
    Gagliardi v. Ziegler et al., Uberoi v. University of Colorado et al., Gravatt v. United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, McGovern v. Meko, Lawrence v. United States Army Tank-Automotive Command et al., Hernandez v. United States, Laurenco v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services,
   485 U. S. 987;

485 U. S. 988;

485 U. S. 1010;

485 U. S. 1011;

485 U. S. 1022;

485 U. S. 1013; and

485 U. S. 1014. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 87-6388.
    Whittington v. Cunnagin, Laurel County Attorney, on Behalf of Englert, et al.,
   485 U. S. 979. Motion of petitioner for leave to file petition for rehearing out of time denied.


text:
    June 6, 1988
    No. 87-1629.
    No. 87-1767.
    National Can Corp. et al. v. Washington Department of Revenue; and Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington Department of Revenue.
   Appeals from Sup. Ct. Wash, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeals were taken as petitions for writs of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Justice White, Justice Stevens, and Justice Scalia would note probable jurisdiction and set cases for oral argument.

Reported below: 109 Wash. 2d 878, 749 P. 2d 1286.


text:
    No. 87-1708.
    Tierney et al. v. Planned Industrial Expansion Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Mo. dismissed for want of properly presented federal question.


text:
    No. 87-1811.
    Voinche v. United States Department of Justice et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 5th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6725.
    Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 9th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1840.
    Solyom et al. v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission et al.
   Appeal from Ct. Sp. App. Md. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. D-667.
    In re Disbarment of Smith.
    [For earlier order herein, see 485 U. S. 951.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-682.
    In re Disbarment of Briscoe.
    [For earlier order herein, see 485 U. S. 953.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-688.
    In re Disbarment of Magedman.
    [For earlier order herein, see 485 U. S. 974.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-695.
    In re Disbarment of Baltimore.
    [For earlier order herein, see 485 U. S. 985.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-713.
    In re Disbarment of Foote.
   It is ordered that Harry Lanier Beach Foote, of Jackson, Miss., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 87-6431.
    Schmuck v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1004.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Peter L. Steinberg, Esq., of Madison, Wis., be appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 87-6704.
    Wrenn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until June 27, 1988, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition for writ of certiorari in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in Brown v. Herald Co., 464 U. S. 928 (1983), we would deny the petition for writ of certiorari without reaching the merits of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.


text:
    No. 87-6772.
    In re Alexander.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Petition for writ of common-law certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6790.
    In re Martin.
   Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 87-636.
    Karahalios v. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1263.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-1201.
    Osterneck et al. v. Ernst & Whinney.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-1295.
    United States v. Sokolow.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-1555.
    Burnley, Secretary of Transportation, et al. v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Thomas Colley et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument in tandem with No. 86-1879, National Treasury Employees Union et al. v. Von Raab, Commissioner, United States Customs Service [certiorari granted, 485 U. S. 903].


text:
    No. 86-757.
    Olympus Corp. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-969.
    Impemba v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1338.
    Millwood v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1514.
    No. 87-1719.
    Armco Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.; and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 832 F. 2d 357.


text:
    No. 87-1515.
    Maine Central Railroad Co. et al. v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1533.
    Daugherty et al. v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1546.
    Melcher, United States Senator v. Federal Open Market Committee et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1548.
    Prewitt v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1578.
    Sodowski v. National Flood Insurance Program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1591.
    Fraser v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1610.
    Jack Dykstra Ford, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1674.
    Benevento et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1675.
    Scherer v. Balkema et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1684.
    Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Estate of Wesson, by Hall, Administratrix and as Guardian of Wesson et al.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1688.
    Owen et ux. v. City of Springfield, Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1696.
    Toyota of Berkeley v. Automobile Salesmen’s Union, Local 1095, United Food & Commercial Workers Union.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1700.
    Capriola et ux. v. B. F. Goodrich Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1709.
    Teubner et ux. v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1713.
    Rutledge v. Marmac Systems Engineering.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1714.
    Elmendorf v. Shaler Area School District.
   Pa. Commw. Ct. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1723.
    English v. Pabst Brewing Co. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.