text:
    No. 81-2110.
    United Building & Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and Council of the City of Camden et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 460 U. S. 1021.] Motion of New England Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 81-2332.
    Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 459 U. S. 1145.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted.

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


text:
    No. 82-585. No. 82-586.
    Aloha Airlines, Inc. v. Director of Taxation of Hawaii; and Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Director of Taxation of Hawaii.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 459 U. S. 1101.] Motion of Multistate Tax Commission et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 82-818. No. 82-852.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco & Bildisco, Debtor-In-Possession, et al.; and Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 459 U. S. 1145.] Motion of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted, and a total of 15 minutes allotted for oral argument. Motion of petitioner in No. 82-852 for divided argument granted, and a total of 15 minutes allotted for oral argument. Request of petitioner in No. 82-852 for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 82-862.
    Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone, Administratrix of the Estate of LeStrange.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted sub nom. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. LeStrange, 459 U. S. 1199.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 82-940.
    Hishon v. King & Spalding.
   C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 459 U. S. 1169.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 82-1031.
    Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 et al. v. Hyde.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 460 U. S. 1021.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 82-914.
    Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 460 U. S. 1010.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted to be divided as follows: Counsel for petitioner, 20 minutes; the Solicitor General, 10 minutes.

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


text:
    No. 82-1041.
    Dickman et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 459 U. S. 1199.] Motion of petitioners for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 82-1608.
    South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. LeResche, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources of Alaska, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 82-5934.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 5, 1983, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

The Chief Justice, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O’Connor would award respondent damages pursuant to Rule 49.2.


text:
    No. 82-6145.
    Tatum v. Regents of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln et al.,
   460 U. S. 1048. Motion of re-

spondents for damages granted, and damages are awarded to respondents in the amount of $500 pursuant to this Court’s Rule 49.2. In all other respects, the motion is denied.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens would deny the motion. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 82-6193.
    Escofil v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Appellant is allowed until July 5,1983, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a jurisdictional statement in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Rehnquist and Justice O’Connor would award appellee damages pursuant to Rule 49.2.


text:
    No. 82-6502.
    In re Rush.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 5, 1983, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

The Chief Justice, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O’Connor would award respondents damages pursuant to Rule 49.2.


text:
    No. 82-6728.
    In re Green.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 82-6584.
    No. 82-6598.
    No. 82-6662.
    In re Weigang; In re Green; and In re Kageler et al.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 82-1186.
    No. 82-1465.
    Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp. et al.; and Franklin Mint Corp. et al. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of International Air Transport Association et al. for leave to intervene in No. 82-1186 denied. Alternative request to treat the brief as a brief amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 690 F. 2d 303.


text:
    No. 82-1217.
    Matanky et al. v. United States et al.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1282.
    No. 82-1423.
    Eddy et al. v. Hess, Administratrix of the Estate of Milano, et al.; and Britton, Commissioner of Board of Corrections of Alabama v. Hess, Administratrix of the Estate of Milano, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied. Reported below: 689 F. 2d 977.


text:
    No. 82-1377.
    McKay v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1427.
    Adams et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1443.
    Lombard et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1455.
    Ellison v. Kane County Sheriff’s Office Merit Commission et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1464.
    Nobel v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1472.
    Kent v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1482.
    Myron v. Trust Company Bank Long-Term Disability Benefit Plan et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1531.
    Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1595.
    Pecora v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1597.
    Ellis v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1614.
    Blazer Corp. v. New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1654.
    Marshall et al. v. Doe, on Behalf of Doe, a Minor.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1671.
    ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., Hostess Cake Division v. Bakery Salesmen, Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 51.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1686.
    Kalaris, Administrative Appeals Judge, et al. v. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1694.
    Collis v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1696.
    Rasky v. City of Chicago et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1697.
    Board of Trustees of Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California v. Reyes et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1703.
    Rush et al., Trustees v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1706.
    Ceppi, Executor of the Estate of Ceppi v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1719.
    No. 82-1740.
    Forum International, Ltd., et al. v. Cher; and Cher v. News Group Publications, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir., Certiorari denied. Reported below: 692 F. 2d 634.


text:
    No. 82-1720.
    Bucci v. Griffin et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1722.
    County of Monroe et al. v. Consolidated Rail Corporation.
   Sp. Ct. R. R. R. A. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1735.
    Rokowsky v. Gordon et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1752.
    Desris et al. v. City of Kenosha, Wisconsin, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1809.
    Bonaccurso v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1831.
    Fierros et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1834.
    Scalise et al. v. Attorney General of the United States et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1853.
    Lee, aka Valente v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6188.
    Marks v. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6544.
    Bormey v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6549.
    Del Prado v. Indiana.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6561.
    Hinton v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6563.
    Saunders v. Veterans Administration et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6567.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6571.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6586.
    Brantner v. Zimmerman et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6590.
    Ritter v. Ritter.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6594.
    Conway et al. v. Anderson, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6595.
    Synesael, Deceased, by her Guardian, Drook, et al. v. Ling, Director of the Department of Public Welfare of Tippecanoe County, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6606.
    Antonelli v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6616.
    Ford v. O’Brien.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6625.
    Strand v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6627.
    Littlejohn v. Cleland et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6628.
    Phillips v. Orndorf et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6704.
    Celestine v. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6708.
    Cook v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6711.
    Hardman v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6713. No. 82-6753.
    Lee v. United States; and Wells v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 700 F. 2d 424.


text:
    No. 82-6715.
    Hill v. Evans, Sheriff, Tarrant County, Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6717.
    Waiters v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6724.
    Stern v. Department of the Army.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6725.
    Tippins v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6740.
    Fuller v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6743.
    Medina v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6745.
    Taylor et al. v. Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6752.
    Nolan v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6762.
    Chico v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6773.
    Lesane v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1490.
    Carthan v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 82-1602.
    Phoenix Baptist Hospital & Medical Center, Inc. v. SHS Hospital Corp. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 82-1610.
    Miami Conservancy District v. Marsh, Secretary of the Army, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.

Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 82-1738.
    Grenada Bank, dba Coahoma Bank v. Willey et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 82-6560.
    No. 82-6577.
    No. 82-6597.
    No. 82-6611.
    Magwood v. Alabama. Williams v. Georgia. Zaragoza v. Arizona. Yates v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. Ala.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Ariz.; and

Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 82-6560, 426 So. 2d 929; No. 82-6577, 250 Ga. 553, 300 S. E. 2d 301; No. 82-6597, 135 Ariz. 63, 659 P. 2d 22; No. 82-6611, 280 S. C. 29, 310 S. E. 2d 805.

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. 82-1344.
    No. 82-1376.
    No. 82-6172.
    No. 82-6187.
    No. 82-6194.
    No. 82-6324.
    No. 82-6343.
    No. 82-6363.
    No. 82-6436.
    Cele v. Kinney et al., Freeman v. United States, Gray v. Lucas, Warden, et al., Stewart v. Florida, Copeland v. South Carolina, Cyntje v. Government of the Virgin Islands et al., Smith v. Bordenkircher, Warden, West Virginia State Penitentiary, Thompson v. Medical Officer at Hamilton County Jail, In re Behrens et al.,
   460 U. S. 1070;

460 U. S. 1084;

461 U. S. 910;

460 U. S. 1103;

460 U. S. 1103;

461 U. S. 908;

461 U. S. 908;

461 U. S. 917; and

461U. S. 925. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 14, 1983
    No. 81-1618.
    No. 81-1619.
    Weyerhaeuser Co. et al v. Lyman Lamb Co. et al; and Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Lyman Lamb Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 456 U. S. 981.] Writs of certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    June 20, 1983
    No. 81-1782.
    City of Virginia et al. v. Nyberg et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of Legal Defense Fund for Unborn Children for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae denied. Motion of Alan Ernest to represent children unborn and born alive denied. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Justice White and Justice Rehnquist would postpone further consideration of the question of jurisdiction to a hearing of the case on the merits. Justice O’Connor would dismiss the appeal for want of a properly presented federal question.


text:
    No. 82-1729.
    Miller v. Municipal Court for the County of Los Angeles, Pasadena Judicial District (California, Real Party in Interest).
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Cal. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6705.
    Betka v. Smith 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. 82-1747.
    Hamilton, Administratrix, et al. v. Stover.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ohio, Richland County, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 82-1751.
    Maynard v. McGuiness et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Mont, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 82-1776.
    S. J. Groves & Sons Co. v. Illinois, Acting Through its Division of Highways of the Department of Transportation.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 82-6644.
    Lortz v. California.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 82-6614.
    Sardoz et al., as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Talamantes v. Kent Nowlin Construction Co.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. M. dismissed for want of properly presented federal question.


text:
    No. 82-1188.
    Kerrey, Governor of Nebraska, et al. v. Women’s Services, P. C., et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of Alan Ernest to represent children unborn and born alive denied. Motion of Legal Defense Fund for Unborn Children for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae denied. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., ante, p. 416, 442-449.

Justice Stevens would affirm the judgment.


text:
    No. 82-438.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Behring International, Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., ante, p. 393.


text:
    No. 82-736.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Heartland Food Warehouse, a Division of Purity Supreme Supermarkets.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., ante, p. 393.


text:
    No. 82-1054.
    International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 988 v. Edwards et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of DelCostello v. Teamsters, ante, p. 151.


text:
    No. 82-1105.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Blackstone Co., Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., ante, p. 393.


text:
    No. 82-1481.
    Astemborski v. Susmarski.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Pickett v. Brown, ante, p. 1.


author: Justice Stevens,

text:
    No. 82-1549.
    United States v. Garcia et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982).

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

After the Court of Appeals denied the Government’s petition for rehearing in this case, the Government voluntarily moved to dismiss the indictments. On January 12, 1983, the District Court granted that motion. No one has ever challenged the effectiveness of the District Court’s order of dismissal, or sought to set it aside, either by a request for rehearing in that court or by direct review on appeal. It is, therefore, perfectly clear that this litigation terminated a long time ago. Nothing remains to be decided on the merits with regard to United States v. Ross or any other issue.


text:
    No. D-363.
    In re Disbarment of Gigliotti.
   It is ordered that Francesco Gigliotti, of New Castle, Pa., 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. 81-2332.
    Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 459 U. S. 1145.] Motion of American Gas Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.

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


text:
    No. 82-15. No. 82-1273.
    Oliver v. United States. Maine v. Thornton.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 459 U. S. 1168]; and

Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. [Certiorari granted, 460 U. S. 1068.] Motion of petitioner in No. 82-15 for divided argument granted. Motion of petitioner in No. 82-1273 for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 82-660.
    United States v. Cronic.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 459 U. S. 1199.] Motion of respondent for substitution of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Steven B. Duke, Esquire, of New Haven, Conn., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case in place of David W. Duncan, Esquire, of Durango, Colo., who is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. 82-708.
    Summa Corp. v. California ex rel. State Lands Commission et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. [Certio-rari granted, 460 U. S. 1036.] Motions of Pacific Legal Foundation and California Land Title Association for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 82-940.
    Hishon v. King & Spalding.
   C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 459 U. S. 1169.] Motion of New England Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 82-1143. No. 82-1146. No. 82-1147.
    Miller Electric Co. et al. v. National Constructors Assn. et al.; National Electrical Contractors Assn., Inc., et al. v. National Constructors Assn. et al.; and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (AFL-CIO) et al. v. National Constructors Assn. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of the parties to defer consideration of the petitions for writs of certiorari granted.

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


text:
    No. 82-1432.
    Pulliam, Magistrate for the County of Culpeper, Virginia v. Allen et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 461 U. S. 904.] Motion of American Bar Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 82-1633. No. 82-1762.
    Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital et al.; and Trustees of Rex Hospital et al. v. Hospital Building Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 82-1651.
    Nix, Warden of the Iowa State Penitentiary v. Williams.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 461 U. S. 956.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Robert Bartels, Esquire, of Tempe, Ariz., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 82-6640.
    In re Damiano.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Petition for writ of common-law certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6609.
    No. 82-6719.
    In re Gifford; and In re Cyntje.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 82-1742.
    In re Forney.
   Petition for writ of prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 82-282.
    McCain et al. v. Lybrand et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. C. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 82-1565.
    Bacchus Imports, Ltd., et al. v. Freitas, Director of Taxation of Hawaii, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Haw. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 82-958.
    McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 82-1643.
    Interstate Commerce Commission et al. v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 81-757.
    No. 81-970.
    Allen v. Wright et al.; and Regan, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. v. Wright et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 211 U. S. App. D. C. 231, 656 F. 2d 820.


text:
    No. 82-1260.
    Copperweld Corp. et al. v. Independence Tube Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.

Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 691 F. 2d 310.


text:
    No. 81-1010.
    Purtill v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-777.
    General Dynamics Corp. v. Gary Aircraft Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1166.
    Zurn Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1305.
    Blackstone Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1389.
    No. 82-1489.
    Mundt v. NL Industries, Inc.; and NL Industries, Inc. v. Mundt.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 705 F. 2d 456.


text:
    No. 82-1391.
    Sperling v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1449.
    Cattell v. Barrett et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1458.
    No. 82-1526.
    Rapaport v. United States; and Ingredient Technology Corp., Formerly Known as SuCrest Corp. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 698 F. 2d 88.


text:
    No. 82-1517.
    No. 82-1541.
    Mission Insurance Co. v. United States; and M/V Big Sam et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 681 F. 2d 432 and 693 F. 2d 451.


text:
    No. 82-1615.
    Diaz-Salazar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1621.
    Pring v. Penthouse International, Ltd., et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1639.
    Marcello v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1652.
    Goldstein v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1655.
    Head v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1674.
    Levine et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1675.
    California v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1702.
    Stevens et al. v. Maislin Transport of Delaware, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1726.
    Texas v. Samudio.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1733.
    Rasnake v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1744.
    Erzinger et al. v. Regents of the University of California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1750.
    Biggs v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.
   App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1757.
    Budget Rent-A-Car of Washington-Oregon, Inc. v. Hertz Corp. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1759.
    T-1740 Trusts, Mercantile Bank & Trust Co., Ltd., Trustee, Transferree v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1763.
    Merida v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1764.
    Gulf & Southern Terminal Corp. v. SS President Roxas.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1765.
    Kerns Bakery, Inc. v. Kentucky Commission on Human Rights et al.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1773.
    Oregon Physicians’ Service et al. v. Hahn et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1775.
    Chambers et al. v. McLean Trucking Co. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1792.
    Dallas County, Texas v. Williams.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1818.
    Rank, Acting Director of the California State Department of Health Services, et al. v. Beltran.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1838.
    Michigan v. Alexander.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1863.
    Silano v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1865.
    Hawkins v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1866.
    Fakter et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1902.
    Dolenz v. All Saints Episcopal Hospital.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-5201.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-5550.
    Shoels v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-5845.
    Bilotti et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6308.
    Perry v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6337.
    Henderson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6372.
    Stevenson v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6375.
    Grimsley v. Dodson, Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6396.
    Silcox v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6452.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6499.
    Woodard v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority et al.
   Sp. Ct. R. R. R. A. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6582. No. 82-6706.
    Coffin v. Ohio; and Veth v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6605.
    Antonelli v. Munch et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6607.
    Fueyo-Fanjul v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6612.
    McClellan v. McClellan.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6613.
    Stewart v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6615.
    Brantley v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6617.
    Baskin v. Marshall.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6622.
    Williams-El v. Tinney, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6626.
    Cavallaro v. Wyrick, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6629.
    Mitchell v. Wyrick, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6631.
    Powell v. Garrison, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6632.
    Woodyard v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6633.
    McClain v. Orr et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6634.
    Wargo v. Attorney General of New Mexico et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6635.
    Selden v. New Castle County Board of Education.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6638.
    Lancaster v. Rodriguez et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6641.
    Meadows v. McGinnis, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6646.
    Mulqueen v. Morris, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6647.
    Boos v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6648.
    Van Poyck v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6650.
    Miller v. Continental Grain Co. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6653.
    Brown v. Garland et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6656.
    Robinson v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6657.
    Cook v. Jones et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6661.
    Huertas v. Apellanis et al.
   Sup. Ct. P. R. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6681.
    McClain v. Mack Trucks, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6750.
    Stanley v. Zimmerman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6769.
    Burns v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6788.
    Gass v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6795.
    Aguilar v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1300.
    Virginia State Bar et al. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Chief Justice Burger,

text:
    No. 82-1301.
    Supreme Court of Virginia et al. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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

Chief Justice Burger,

with whom Justice Rehnquist joins,

dissenting.

This petition marks the third occasion this case has been before us. The case arose in 1975 when respondents brought a suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 alleging that particular provisions of the State Bar Code promulgated by the Virginia Supreme Court violated respondents’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Having prevailed in their § 1983 suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Virginia Supreme Court and its chief justice (together, the “Virginia Court”), the issue now is whether respondent Consumers Union is entitled to attorney’s fees from that court under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, 42 U. S. C. § 1988. This was also the issue we addressed the last time this case came before us, when we vacated an award of attorney’s fees against the Virginia Court on the ground that it “was premised on acts or omissions for which [the Virginia Court] enjoyed absolute legislative immunity.” Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U. S. 719, 738 (1980) (Consumers Union).

On remand, a divided three-judge District Court reinstated the award of attorney’s fees against the Virginia Court, Consumers Union v. American Bar Assn., 505 F. Supp. 822 (ED Va. 1981), and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed. Consumers Union v. Virginia State Bar, 688 F. 2d 218 (CA4 1982). Because I believe that the District Court misinterpreted our opinion in Consumers Union and erred in reinstating the fee award, I would grant certiorari.

I

It is unnecessary to review here at length the prior history of this case, which is set out in detail in Consumers Union. There, two basic issues faced the Court:

“[W]hether the Supreme Court of Virginia (Virginia Court) and its chief justice are officially immune from suit in an action brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 challenging the Virginia Court’s disciplinary rules governing the conduct of attorneys and whether attorney’s fees were properly awarded under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U. S. C. §1988, against the Virginia Court and its chief justice in his official capacity.” 446 U. S., at 721.

With respect to the first issue, we held that the Virginia Court was not subject to suit under § 1983 for its legislative acts — such as promulgating disciplinary rules — any more than state legislators could be sued for their legislative acts: “[T]he Virginia Court and its members are immune from suit when acting in their legislative capacity.” Id., at 734. However, the Court went on to hold that the Virginia Court was a proper defendant in a coercive action brought under § 1983 because it possessed enforcement powers. “As already indicated, §54-74 [of the Code of Virginia (1978)] gives the Virginia Court independent authority of its own to initiate proceedings against attorneys. For this reason the Virginia Court and its members were proper defendants in a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, just as other enforcement officers and agencies were.” Id., at 736.

Turning to the second issue, we vacated the award of attorney’s fees against the Virginia Court. The District Court had awarded fees against the Virginia Court because “it was the very authority that had propounded and failed to amend the challenged provisions of the Bar Code.” Id., at 738. This was error because the Virginia Court had legislative immunity for its acts in promulgating disciplinary rules:

“We are unable to agree that attorney’s fees should have been awarded for the reasons relied on by the District Court. Although the Virginia Court and its chief justice were subject to suit in their direct enforcement role, they were immune in their legislative roles. Yet the District Court’s award of attorney’s fees in this case was premised on acts or omissions for which [the Virginia Court] enjoyed absolute legislative immunity.” Ibid.

We explained that nothing in the legislative history of § 1988 indicated that Congress “intended to permit an award of attorney’s fees to be premised on acts for which defendants would enjoy absolute legislative immunity.” Ibid.

We then vacated the award of attorney’s fees and remanded, presumably to permit the District Court to determine whether the role of the Virginia State Bar — the Virginia Court’s codefendant in the case — in enforcing the challenged rules justified an award of attorney’s fees against it.

On remand, the District Court interpreted Consumers Union as holding that an award of attorney’s fees against the Virginia Court would be appropriate on the existing record “based solely on the Virginia Court’s enforcement role . . . .” 505 F. Supp., at 823. The District Court reasoned that because the Virginia Court’s enforcement role rendered it liable to a coercive suit under § 1983, it was also liable for attorney’s fees under § 1988:

“It seems clear that ‘in the circumstances of this case, a sufficiently concrete dispute is . . . made out against the Virginia Court as an enforcer,’ . . . not only for amenability to suit, but also for the purpose of a fee award to [respondent], the prevailing party.” Id., at 823-824, quoting Consumers Union, supra, at 736, n. 15.

The District Court quoted Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402 (1968), in arguing that § 1988 ordinarily requires an award of attorney’s fees against a party properly sued under § 1983 “ ‘unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.’” 505 F. Supp., at 824. It concluded that no such circumstances existed here and so awarded fees against the Virginia Court.

One judge dissented, arguing that the Virginia Court’s “enforcement role” was not established by the record and hence could not serve as the basis for an award of attorney’s fees.

A divided Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the award of attorney’s fees against the Virginia Court was not an abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals interpreted Consumers Union as holding that an award of attorney’s fees would be justified on this record.

The immunity of judges from monetary judgments for their actions as judges is deeply embedded in our legal system. E. g., Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 349 (1978); Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872); Johnston v. Moorman, 80 Va. 131, 139-140 (1885). In Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 554-555 (1967), we refused, in the absence of specific statutory language, to presume that Congress intended by enacting § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, to displace the historic rule of judicial immunity; we held that the doctrine of judicial immunity was applicable in suits for damages under that section. The principles ,of Pierson apply with full force to suits for attorney’s fees under § 1988. Nothing in the language or legislative history of the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 specifically indicates Congress’ intent to sweep away the historic immunity of judges from monetary judgments. In Pierson, the Court explained that the purpose of judicial immunity

“‘is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.’ . . . Imposing such a burden on judges would contribute not to principled and fearless decision-making but to intimidation.” 386 U. S., at 554 (citations omitted).

See also Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U. S. 24, 31 (1980). I fail to see how an award of attorney’s fees is any less of a threat to judicial independence than an award of damages. An independent judiciary, uncowed by fears of financial liability for its official acts, is an integral aspect of state sovereignty and critical to the security of our freedoms. I would not presume that Congress cast this fundamental rule to the winds in the absence of specific statutory language rendering judges liable for attorney’s fees. No such language is found in § 1988.

Although judges are immune from monetary damages under §1983 for their official acts, see, e. g., Stump v. Sparkman, supra, they are nonetheless subject to suit for in-junctive and declaratory relief in their administrative capacities. E. g., Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 299 F. Supp. 117, 123-124 (SDNY 1969) (three-judge District Court) (Friendly, J.), aff’d on other grounds, 401 U. S. 154 (1971). However, it is beyond peradventure that the amenability of a judge to suit for equitable relief for his role in enforcing or administrating a statute does not render him liable for damages for that same act. See, e. g., Slavin v. Curry, 574 F. 2d 1256, 1264 (CA5 1978); Louis v. Supreme Court of Nevada, 490 F. Supp. 1174, 1182 (Nev. 1980). I do not understand how it can be that a judge should be liable for attorney’s fees for performing the same act for which he would be immune from damages. Here, the Virginia Court was held subject to suit for injunctive and declaratory relief because it possessed the power to enforce or administer disciplinary rules against members of the State Bar. Consumers Union, 446 U. S., at 736. Such liability no more entails liability for attorney’s fees than it does for damages.

The District Court and Court of Appeals purported to rely on dictum in Consumers Union stating that a fee award against the Virginia Court might be proper if made “because of its own direct enforcement role.” Id., at 739. Assuming, arguendo, that a fee award could be made against a judge for his acts in an administrative or enforcement capacity, the District Court still erred.

We held in Consumers Union that the Virginia Court was a proper defendant in a coercive § 1983 suit because it had the potential power to prosecute attorneys for disciplinary violations. However, there was no evidence in the record that it had ever exercised its enforcement powers. After vacating the award because it was premised on acts — the promulgation and failure to amend the challenged disciplinary rules— for which the Virginia Court was entitled to absolute legislative immunity, we remanded the case. If we had thought that the mere existence of enforcement authority would support the award, there would have been no need to remand as to the Virginia Court. Thus, we necessarily remanded for further findings on the Virginia Court’s actual exercise of its enforcement powers, and for consideration of whether such acts justified a fee award against the court.

On remand, the District Court took no evidence as to the Virginia Court’s actual role in enforcing the challenged rule; in reinstating the award, it relied solely on the mere existence of disciplinary authority. 505 F. Supp., at 823-824. In short, the fee award rests on the same basis now — the Virginia Court’s promulgation of disciplinary rules — that it did before. The District Court’s reliance on the Virginia Court’s potential “disciplinary enforcement authority” cannot cover up the utter lack of proof in the record that the Virginia Court ever did anything to enforce the rule. Thus, the fee award cannot stand.

For all the foregoing reasons, I would grant certiorari to consider the important question of whether an award of attorney’s fees against a judge may be premised solely on the existence of enforcement authority.

       Respondents sued the Supreme Court of Virginia, its chief justice, the Virginia State Bar, and others. Petitioners in this case are the Supreme Court of Virginia and its chief justice.

       In dissent, Judge Chapman trenchantly pointed out that the ostensible purpose of this suit — to force the Virginia Supreme Court and Virginia State Bar to permit respondent Consumers Union to publish a directory of lawyers — had long been submerged in the quest for attorney’s fees:
      “For the past three years this suit has been nothing but an effort by the plaintiff’s attorneys to establish a theory upon which they could collect a fee. In the spring of 1979 the last possible impediment to gathering the information and publishing the Attorney’s Directory for Arlington County was removed. However, when this case was argued in November 1981 the directory had not been printed or distributed. As a result of numerous questions by the court to the attorneys for Consumers Union, the information has been gathered and the directory published. A copy of the directory was forwarded to this court on June 15, 1982. It contains the names of 78 attorneys in Arlington, Virginia. This action has made three trips to the United States Supreme Court, and is presently on its way back to the Supreme Court, all to produce 78 names.” 688 F. 2d 218, 224 (CA4 1982).


text:
    No. 82-1471.
    Department of Revenue of Montana v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Missoula et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Motion of Multistate Tax Commission for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1631.
    Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O’Connor would award respondent damages pursuant to this Court’s Rule 49.2.


text:
    No. 82-1770.
    National Enquirer, Inc. v. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Jones et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal, 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 82-6448.
    Hernandez v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


author: Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 82-6474.
    Smith v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Brennan,

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, 227 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in,,this case.

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, I would grant certio-rari and vacate petitioner’s death sentence on this basis alone. However, even if I accepted the prevailing view that the death penalty can constitutionally be imposed under certain circumstances, I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence on the ground that neither the jury that convicted petitioner of murder nor the judge who sentenced him found that he “kill[ed], attempt[ed] to kill, or intended] that a killing take place or that lethal force ... be employed.” Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782, 797 (1982). The jury was instructed that “liability for first degree murder extends to all co-felons who are personally present during the commission of the felony” and that “[ujnder the felony murder rule, [the] state of mind of the defendant is immaterial.” Tr. 2678. In imposing sentence, the trial judge did not find that petitioner himself killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill. Although the Supreme Court of Florida concluded that “there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found [petitioner] guilty of premeditated murder,” 424 So. 2d 726, 733 (1982) (emphasis added), neither the jury nor the judge actually made such a finding. Under these circumstances our decision in Enmund v. Florida requires that petitioner’s death sentence be vacated.


text:
    No. 82-1386.
    No. 82-1500.
    No. 82-1534.
    No. 82-6141.
    No. 82-6262.
    No. 82-6423.
    No. 82-6476.
    No. 82-6510.
    Fields v. Summit Engineering, Colokathis v. Wentworth-Douglass Hospital et al., Neufeld v. Bambrough et al., Adams v. Oklahoma, Wallace v. Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Bolander v. Florida, Plyler v. Leeke, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al., Shao Fen Chin, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Ke-Sien Chin v. St. Luke’s Hospital Center et al.,
   460 U. S. 1077;

461 U. S. 915;

461 U. S. 915;

461 U. S. 932;

460 U. S. 1103;

461 U. S. 939;

461 U. S. 935; and

461 U. S. 959. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 8,
    Orig.
    Arizona v. California et al.,
   460 U. S. 605. Motion of the Quechan Indian Tribe for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 82-978.
    Tonubbee v. Louisiana,
   460 U. S. 1081. Motion of petitioner to proceed further herein informa pau-peris granted. Petition for rehearing denied.