text:
    No. 81-189.
    Israel et al. v. McMorris.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pawperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice Rehnquist,

with whom Justice O’Connor joins,

dissenting.

Before September 1, 1981, polygraph evidence was admissible in a criminal trial in Wisconsin if the prosecutor and the defendant stipulated in writing both to the administration of the test itself and to the subsequent admission into evidence of the test results. Notwithstanding the stipulation, the trial court, in its discretion, could refuse to admit the test results into evidence if it determined that the examiner was not qualified or if the test was not conducted under proper conditions. The opposing party was provided with the opportunity to cross-examine the examiner. Finally, the trial judge was required to instruct the jury that the test tends only to indicate whether at the time of the test the defendant was telling the truth and that the test results may not be used to prove or disprove any element of the crime. See State v. Stanislawski, 62 Wis. 2d 730, 742-743, 216 N.W. 2d 8, 14 (1976).

Because the Wisconsin procedure permitted the prosecutor to refuse, “without articulating his reasons,” a defendant’s offer to stipulate to the admission of polygraph evidence, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that respondent’s due process rights may have been violated. It directed that a writ of habeas corpus issue unless the “prosecutor had valid reasons for refusing to enter into the stipulation offered by the defendant.” 643 F. 2d 458, 466 (1981). According to the Court of Appeals, “the prosecutor’s refusal to enter into a stipulation must be for justifiable reasons. Justifiable reasons in this context are reasons which go to the reliability of the test or to the integrity of the trial process, not reasons which consider merely the relative tactical advantages from the use of the evidence to the prosecution and the defense.” Id., at 464. In order for a court to review the prosecutor’s refusal to stipulate to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the prosecutor must articulate his reasons.

In my view, this Court should grant the petition for certio-rari in this case. Although the case involves a state rule of evidence, the Court of Appeals’ decision did not rest on the trial court’s exclusion of evidence necessary for the defendant to mount a defense, but on the prosecutor’s refusal to stipulate to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence. In this case, the Court of Appeals has found federal constitutional issues lurking, not in a state court’s refusal to admit exculpatory evidence proffered by the defendant, but in the prosecutor’s reasons for refusing to stipulate to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence. In a given case, this Court’s decisions may require that exculpatory evidence be admitted into evidence despite state evidentiary rules to the contrary, but these cases do not suggest any limitation upon the reasons that may permissibly motivate the prosecutor’s objection to the admission of inadmissible evidence.

Because the Wisconsin polygraph rule was based on principles of consent and waiver,1 do not see how the Court of Appeals’ reasoning would not apply to any objection by a prosecutor to the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence. Though the Court of Appeals attempted to limit its decision to cases involving the polygraph, it seems to me that its reasoning necessarily sweeps a good deal beyond just that type of evidence. In our adversarial system of criminal procedure, testimony from witnesses and documentary exhibits are generally admitted into evidence unless the opposing party objects. In a sense, any such objection by the prosecution is a “refusal” to consent or to stipulate to the admissibility of the evidence. Such an objection, in the words of the Court of Appeals, enables the prosecutor “to veto” the admission of inadmissible evidence. But, according to the Court of Appeals, the defendant’s right to a fair trial may be denied because the prosecutor has merely objected on the grounds that the State’s evidentiary rules require that the evidence be excluded. The Court of Appeals expressed concern at the inability of courts to review this exercise of prosecutorial authority; but I have thought the common premise of the constitutional limitations on a State’s administration of criminal justice was that either party to a criminal trial could “veto” the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence through the simple expedient of objecting to its admission.

True, we have held that a defendant’s rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments may be implicated when a trial court mechanically applies state evidentiary rules to preclude a defendant from introducing exculpatory evidence necessary to his defense. See, e. g., Green v. Georgia, 442 U. S. 95 (1979) (capital case); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S. 284 (1973); Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14 (1967). But here the Court of Appeals did not find that the exclusion of the polygraph testimony by the trial court was in itself error of constitutional magnitude; it was at pains to point out that Wisconsin was free to wholly exclude polygraph evidence if it chose to follow that policy. The fault the Court of Appeals found with respondent’s state-court trial was not the ultimate exclusion of the polygraph evidence, but the fact that the prosecutor failed to articulate any reason for refusing to consent to its admission. I think that this is a dubious constitutional holding with considerable implications beyond the facts of the case — indeed, beyond polygraph tests — which warrants plenary consideration by this Court.

Although Wisconsin has recently abandoned its stipulation rule in favor of a rule that forbids the admission of polygraph evidence under any circumstances, this is hardly a reason to deny review in this case. In light of the Court of Appeals’ decision, habeas corpus relief is apparently available to all Wisconsin prisoners who were precluded by the stipulation rule from introducing polygraph test results into evidence. Because as many as 23 States will admit polygraph evidence upon stipulation, the Court of Appeals’ decision calls into question the constitutionality of almost half the States’ evi-dentiary rules regarding the admissibility of polygraph test results. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held that polygraph evidence may be admitted upon stipulation into evidence in a criminal trial. United States v. Oliver, 525 F. 2d 731, 736-737 (1975), cert. denied, 424 U. S. 973 (1976). Finally, two Courts of Appeals have held that a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial is not infringed when the prosecutor refuses to stipulate to the admissibility of polygraph test results. Milano v. Garrison, 677 F. 2d 374, 375 (CA4 1981); Jackson v. Garrison, 677 F. 2d 371, 373 (CA4 1981); Conner v. Auger, 595 F. 2d 407, 411 (CA8), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 851 (1979); United States v. Bohr, 581F. 2d 1294, 1303 (CA8), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 958 (1978).

Because of this apparent conflict among the Courts of Appeals on this issue, and because of doubt as to the correctness of the Court of Appeals’ decision in this case, I would grant the writ of certiorari.

       The Wisconsin Supreme Court has recently overruled Stanislawski, holding it error to admit polygraph evidence in a criminal proceeding unless the stipulation was executed prior to September 1, 1981. State v. Dean, 103 Wis. 2d 228, 279, 307 N.W. 2d 628, 653 (1981).

       The Court of Appeals apparently based its conclusion on Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14 (1967), and Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S. 284 (1973).

       The Wisconsin Supreme Court has expressly stated that its stipulation rule was based on principles of consent and waiver. State v. Dean, supra, at 257, 307 N.W. 2d, at 642.

       Pet. for Cert. 25.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Brennan,

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 81-353.
    Spradling v. Texas; and Dunn v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan,

with whom Justice Marshall joins,

dissenting.

On September 4, 1980, two women, Vicki Rash Norvell and Bobby Folks Rash, while walking together, were killed by the driver of a hit-and-run automobile. Petitioner Sprad-ling later identified himself as the driver and two indictments were presented against him on October 1, 1980. The first charged Spradling with failing to stop and render aid to Vicki Rash Norvell, a felony under Texas law. The second indictment, in identical language, charged Spradling with failing to stop and render aid to Bobby Folks Rash. Spradling was convicted by a jury under the first indictment. The jury assessed as punishment a 5-year prison sentence and a fine of $5,000, and recommended that, in light of the fact that petitioner had never before been convicted of a felony, his prison sentence be suspended. Now the State seeks to prosecute Spradling under the second indictment.

Petitioner moved to dismiss this second indictment claiming former jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied leave to file an application for a writ of prohibition.

Petitioner presents two questions for review. First, he argues that the failure of the State of Texas to afford him review of the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for reason of former jeopardy violates the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, petitioner argues the “merits” of his double jeopardy claim were improperly rejected by the trial court. In my view both questions are substantial and merit review by this Court.

I

Texas procedure provides no mechanism for interlocutory review in criminal cases; petitioner was therefore unable to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss on the ground of double jeopardy. It is clear that in most applications the Texas procedural rule barring interlocutory review raises no federal constitutional issue. But as applied to claims of former jeopardy, this procedural rule, in combination with a denial by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals of leave to file an application for a writ of prohibition, denies criminal defendants the opportunity to protect, through the state appellate system, their constitutional rights. I believe this raises an issue worthy of our consideration.

We held in Abney v. United States, 431 U. S. 651 (1977), that a double jeopardy claim is by its very nature collateral to, and separable from, the guilt of the accused, and that when a trial court rejects a motion to dismiss on the grounds of former jeopardy this order is final and appealable under 28 U. S. C. §1291. The rationale for our decision in Abney was, in part, that “the rights conferred on a criminal accused by the Double Jeopardy Clause would be significantly undermined if appellate review of double jeopardy claims were postponed until after conviction and sentence.” Id., at 660. This is because the Clause stands, in part, as “a guarantee against being twice put to trial for the same offense.” Id., at 661 (footnote omitted).

Respondent argues that in Abney the Court merely exercised its supervisory powers over federal criminal prosecutions, and that there is no constitutional right to pretrial review of a claim that a second trial will violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. It is true that the Court had no need to reach the constitutional question presented in the instant case when it decided Abney, but the Court’s recognition in Abney that double jeopardy claims not considered prior to trial are rendered, in significant part, moot surely has significant constitutional overtones. We have never held that the Federal Constitution requires that a State provide appellate review. But once such review is provided, it may not be denied arbitrarily without violating the Equal Protection Clause. See, e. g., Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963). See also Monger v. Florida, 405 U. S. 958, 959-960 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting). Fundamental precepts of due process require a right to be heard “at a meaningful time” before suffering a grievous loss. Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 552 (1965). Accord, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 333 (1976). Thus, there is surely a good deal of force to petitioner’s argument that, if the State provides for appeals to protect other constitutional rights, it runs afoul of the Federal Constitution when it fails to give the same meaningful consideration to a defendant asserting his right not to be subjected to a second trial for the same offense. See Alexander, Interlocutory Appellate Review of Double Jeopardy Claims: A Method for Testing Evidentiary Sufficiency After a Non-Final Criminal Proceeding, 44 Tex. Bar J. 11, 15 (1981).

II

Even if the Court declined to review the constitutionality of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ failure to provide review, it is clear to me that the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss on the ground of former jeopardy is reviewable by this Court under 28 U. S. C. §1257(3). Under this Court’s precedents, the refusal to dismiss a criminal indictment prior to trial when the indictment is challenged on the grounds of former jeopardy is a final judgment under 28 U. S. C. § 1257. “Since the state courts have finally rejected a claim that the Constitution forbids a second trial of the petitioner, a claim separate and apart from the question whether the petitioner may constitutionally be convicted of the crimes with which he is charged, our jurisdiction is properly invoked under 28 U. S. § 1257.” Harris v. Washington, 404 U. S. 55, 56 (1971). Cf. Abney, supra. Where, as here, the trial court’s judgment is not reviewable by any state appellate court the judgment has been rendered by “the highest state court in which a decision may be had” within the meaning of § 1257. Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U. S. 45, 47 (1935). See, e. g., Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U. S. 199, 202-203 (1960).

In my view, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that, except in extremely limited circumstances, not present here, “all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction” be prosecuted in a single proceeding. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454, and n. 7 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). See Thompson v. Oklahoma, 429 U. S. 1053 (1977) (Brennan, J., dissenting), and cases collected therein. Spradling’s striking and failing to render aid to the two women was but a single act — the accident and its aftermath a single occurrence. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Texas trial court.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the denial of the petition for certiorari and would set the case for oral argument.

       See, e. g., Williams v. State, 464 S. W. 2d 842, 844 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971).

       Of course, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ rejection of petitioner’s double jeopardy claim does not rest on an adequate state ground if, as petitioner contends, the Texas procedure is incompatible with the Federal Constitution.

       The fact that petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is, of course, no bar to our treating the papers as a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Texas trial court. See, e. g., Callender v. Florida, 383 U. S. 270 (1966) (per curiam). The petition was not filed within 60 days of the entry of the trial court’s order but in view of the fact that petitioner understandably attempted to obtain review, prior to seeking review in this Court, in the state courts through the only route available — an extraordinary writ — I would waive the nonjurisdietional time limits, for filing petitions in criminal cases set by Supreme Court Rule 20.

       If we treat the papers as a petition for a writ to the trial court, there would be no need to even consider whether the state appellate court’s refusal to consider the merits of petitioner’s federal claim because of a rule of state procedure is a bar to review by this Court. Cf. Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U. S. 443 (1965). Cf. also n. 2, supra.

       The petition for certiorari was filed jointly on behalf of Spradling and a second petitioner, Dunn, who was tried on drug charges in an unrelated trial. Following his acquittal, Dunn was tried on a different charge arising from the “same transaction.” Dunn also unsuccessfully sought leave to file an application for a writ of prohibition in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to obtain review of his double jeopardy claim prior to a second trial. But the record in this case indicates that Dunn was convicted on the second charge on November 16, 1981, after this petition was filed. Record 42. Thus, it appears that the Texas appellate courts would now review Dunn’s double jeopardy claim and should do so in the first instance.


text:
    No. 81-749.
    California v. Winson.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1195.
    Michigan v. Hurd.
   Ct. App. Mich. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-795.
    No. 81-1005.
    J. S. Alberici Construction Co., Inc. v. Sisco; and Sisco v. J. S. Alberici Construction Co., Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.

Reported below: 655 F. 2d 146.


text:
    No. 81-850.
    St. Louis County, Missouri, et al. v. Simon.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 81-851.
    Cox v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the petition for certiorari and reverse the conviction.


author: Justice White,

text:
    No. 81-933.
    Green v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Butler County. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan would set the case for oral argument.

Justice White,

with whom Justice Blackmun and Justice Powell join,

dissenting.

Because there is no jurisdictional bar to considering this case, and because the decision below fails to give due regard to our cases, I dissent from the denial of certiorari.

HH

Petitioner, an attorney, was indicted m 1978 on two counts of grand theft. The first count charged him with obtaining or exerting control over a bank account by deception in that he led the executrix of an estate to believe that the account was a probate asset of the estate rather than a survivorship account. The second count of the indictment charged petitioner with obtaining or exerting control over the account beyond the scope of the owner’s consent by writing $9,000 in checks payable to himself on the account. The trial court sustained petitioner’s pretrial motion to dismiss the first count of the indictment on the ground that it failed to state an offense under the Ohio statute. He was acquitted following a bench trial on the second count, the trial judge finding that the State had “failed to establish all of [the] elements” of the crime charged in the second count. App. to Pet. for Cert. 13a. The State appealed the pretrial dismissal of the first count and on January 30, 1980, the Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District of Ohio reversed the dismissal of the first count and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Petitioner then filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that a trial on the first count would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436 (1970), petitioner argued that the principle of collateral estoppel is part of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy and that his acquittal on the second count prevented the State from again attempting to prove one or more of the elements of the crime charged in the first count. The trial court denied the motion and petitioner appealed.

The Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio affirmed the denial of the motion. Relying principally on Blockburger v. United States, 284 U. S. 299 (1932), the court said that the test for determining whether the trial on the second count bars a subsequent trial on the first count is whether each count requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. The court observed that in order to obtain a conviction on the second count, the State was required to prove that petitioner knowingly obtained or exerted control over the property of another, with purpose to deprive the owner of that property, and that he acted beyond the scope of the owner’s express or implied consent. To successfully prosecute on the first count, the State must prove that petitioner obtained or exerted control over property of another by deception with the purpose of depriving the owner of the property. The court held that the evidence necessary to sustain the conviction on the first count was not sufficient to sustain a conviction on the second count and therefore acquittal of the charges contained in the second count is not a bar to prosecution of the charges contained in the first count. The court went on to state that even if petitioner were correct that the two counts set forth allied offenses with a common animus, he could not avoid a trial on the first count because he filed a motion to dismiss the first count. Therefore, as in Jeffers v. United States, 432 U. S. 137, 154 (1977), where the defendant had been granted separate trials on separate counts of the indictment at his own request, petitioner’s own actions “deprived him of any right he might have had against consecutive trials.” The Supreme Court of Ohio denied petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal, and he sought a writ of certiorari from this Court.

HH HH

Petitioner has not yet been tried on the first count of the indictment, and therefore this case lacks the finality ordinarily necessary for our consideration of cases arising from state courts. See 28 U. S. C. § 1257. However, in Abney v. United States, 431 U. S. 651 (1977), in a case coming to us from a federal court, the Court held that double jeopardy claims are immediately appealable. “[T]he rights conferred on a criminal accused by the Double Jeopardy Clause would be significantly undermined if appellate review of double jeopardy claims were postponed until after conviction and sentence.” Id., at 660. It was emphasized that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against more than being twice convicted and punished for the same crime: “It is a guarantee against being twice put to trial for the same offense.” Id., at 661 (footnote omitted). See also United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S. 470, 479 (1971); Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323, 326 (1970); Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187-188 (1957); United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 669 (1896); Ex Parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 169 (1874). Abney was not, by its terms, limited to federal cases, and we have recognized a “core principle that statutorily created finality requirements should, if possible, be construed so as not to cause crucial collateral claims to be lost and potentially irreparable injuries to be suffered . . . .” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 331, n. 11 (1976). If the finality requirement of §1257, which serves to avoid piecemeal review of state-court decisions and to minimize federal intrusion into state affairs, North Dakota Pharmacy Board v. Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc., 414 U. S. 156, 159 (1973), barred our review of this case, petitioner would, in my view, be “forced to endure a trial that the Double Jeopardy Clause was designed to prohibit.” Abney v. United States, supra, at 662 (footnote omitted). The interests served by the finality requirement, though important, do not outweigh petitioner’s interest in receiving the full protection afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause and avoiding the irreparable injury of a second trial.

Nor did petitioner waive his Fifth Amendment right to double jeopardy protection by moving to dismiss the first count of the indictment. In Green v. United States, supra, it was held that a defendant does not forfeit a double jeopardy defense by appealing a conviction, and under the logic of that case, petitioner did not forfeit a constitutional protection by invoking his right to seek dismissal of a count of the indictment. See also Burks v. United States, 437 U. S. 1 (1978). Jeffers v. United States, supra, relied upon by the lower court, is inapplicable. There the defendant was charged under two separate indictments. The first indictment charged a crime which was a lesser-included offense to the crime charged in the second indictment. The defendant was granted separate trials and convicted on the lesser-included offense. We held that petitioner’s opposition to consolidating the indictments for trial deprived him of his right against successive trials. Id., at 152. There is no doubt that had the defendant in Jeffers been acquitted at the first trial, the collateral-estoppel provisions embodied in the Double Jeopardy Clause would have barred a second trial on the greater offense.

Ill

The Court of Appeals apparently thought that since Blockburger would not bar successive convictions on counts one and two, a trial on count one after acquittal on count two is permissible. It did not respond to, or make any mention of, petitioner’s argument that collateral estoppel precludes a second trial. However, our cases plainly establish that a second trial may sometimes be allowed under Blockburger but barred by the application of collateral estoppel, which constitutes an independent safeguard protecting one “who has been acquitted from having to ‘run the gauntlet’ a second time.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S., at 446. The doctrine of collateral estoppel “means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” Id., at 443. Ashe held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel “is embodied in the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy.” Id., at 445. Thus, as we observed in Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S. 161, 166-167, n. 6 (1977):

“The Blockburger test is not the only standard for determining whether successive prosecutions impermis-sibly involve the same offense. Even if two offenses are sufficiently different to permit the imposition of consecutive sentences, successive prosecutions will be barred in some circumstances where the second prosecution requires the relitigation of factual issues already resolved by the first.”

The Court of Appeals thus erred in assuming that its Blockburger analysis sufficiently addressed the collateral-estoppel issues petitioner submitted. Two of the three elements in each of the counts were identical. If the acquittal on the second count was based on the failure of the State to prove either of the two identical elements, it is clear that collateral estoppel would bar a trial on the first count. Yet neither the trial court nor the appellate court indicated which elements of the crime charged in count two the State had failed to prove, and surely the trial court entering the acquittal would have been well aware of that fact. It may be that the State’s proof fell short on each of the three elements required to prove the charge in count two. Petitioner also argues that if his acquittal on the second count was based on the failure of proof that petitioner acted beyond the scope of the owner’s consent, then he cannot be found to have acted by deception as required for conviction on the first count.

In any event, the collateral-estoppel submission was not adequately disposed of by the Blockburger analysis, and I would grant certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand the case for further consideration. The case does not warrant plenary consideration, however.


text:
    No. 81-1241.
    Goldstein v. City of Norfolk.
   Cir. Ct., City of Norfolk, Va. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the petition for certio-rari and reverse the conviction.


text:
    No. 81-964.
    Marshall & Ilsley Corp. et al. v. Conover, Comptroller of the Currency of the United States, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 81-1135.
    Hester v. Martindale-Hubbell, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 81-1022.
    Press-Enterprise Co. et al. v. Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 81-1033.
    St. Joe Paper Co. v. Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco (Esprit de Corp., Real Party in Interest).
   Ct. App, Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Justice Powell would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 81-1052.
    Williams v. Shipping Corporation of India.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1213.
    Mobil Corp. et al. v. Marathon Oil Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 81-5834.
    Soule v. Raines.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.

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


text:
    No. 81-1229.
    Paxton National Insurance Co. v. Transport Indemnity Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice White would grant certiorari to resolve the conflict between the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case and the decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Argonaut Insurance Co. v. National Indemnity Co., 435 F. 2d 718 (1971), and Hagans v. Glens Falls Insurance Co., 465 F. 2d 1249 (1972).


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 81-5786.
    No. 81-5840.
    No. 81-5844.
    No. 81-5872.
    No. 81-5919.
    No. 81-5935.
    No. 81-5937.
    No. 81-5970.
    Strouth v. Tennessee. Davis v. Zant, Superintendent, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center. Bowen v. Zant, Warden. Justus v. Virginia. Schad v. Arizona. Green v. Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center. Coleman v. Montana. Tafero v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Term.;

Super. Ct. Ga., Butts County;

Super. Ct. Ga., Butts County;

Sup. Ct. Va.;

Sup. Ct. Ariz.;

Super. Ct. Ga., Butts County;

Sup. Ct. Mont.; and

Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-tiorari denied. Reported below: No. 81-5786, 620 S. W. 2d 467; No. 81-5872, 222 Va. 667, 283 S. E. 2d 905; No. 81-5919, 129 Ariz. 557, 633 P. 2d 366; No. 81-5937,-Mont.-, 633 P. 2d 624; No. 81-5970, 403 So. 2d 355.

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. 80-1396.
    No. 81-222.
    No. 81-256.
    No. 81-747.
    Brandon et al. v. Board of Education of Guilderland School District et al., Valero Energy Corp. v. Sohyde Drilling & Workover, Inc., et al., Moore v. Scurr, Warden, et al., Patterson et al. v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al.,
   454 U. S. 1123;

454 U. S. 1081;

454 U. S. 1098; and

454 U. S. 1100. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 81-5060.
    No. 81-5454.
    No. 81-5586.
    No. 81-5611.
    No. 81-5666.
    No. 81-5712.
    No. 81-5818.
    No. 81-5819.
    Johnson v. Louisiana, Anthon v. United States, Davis v. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Fowler v. Garrahy, Governor of Rhode Island, et al., Hegwood v. Blackburn, Warden, Holloway v. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Shabazz v. Maynard, Warden, et al., Penoyer v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation,
   454 U. S. 1100;

454 U. S. 1164;

454 U. S. 1090;

454 U. S. 1102;

454 U. S. 1153;

454 U. S. 1154;

ante, p. 925; and

ante, p. 925. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 81-700.
    Loesch et al. v. United States,
   454 U. S. 1099. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of petition for rehearing denied. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    February 23, 1982
    No. 81-822.
    Levison v. Levison,
   454 U. S. 1147. Petition for rehearing dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    March 1, 1982
    No. 81-1161.
    Hightower et al. v. Searcy et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from C. A. 11th Cir.


text:
    No. 81-960.
    Locke et al. v. Florida.
   Appeal from Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 81-1035.
    Laird, aka Horne, et al. v. South Carolina.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. S. C. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-629.
    Maren Engineering Corp. v. Velmohos.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. J. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of G. D. Searle & Co. v. Cohn, ante, p. 404.

Justice Rehnquist, Justice Stevens, and Justice O’Connor would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 80-663.
    Kelsey-Hayes, Inc. v. Hopkins.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of G. D. Searle & Co. v. Cohn, ante, p. 404.


text:
    No. A-672.
    Ernest v. Cohen, United States Attorney for the District of Maine, et al.
   Application for injunction, addressed to Justice O’Connor and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 80-1121.
    United States v. Clark et al.,
   454 U. S. 555. Motion of respondents not to tax costs denied.


text:
    No. 80-2100.
    Rogers et al. v. Lodge et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 454 U. S. 811.] Motion of appellants for leave to file a delayed reply brief granted.


text:
    No. 80-1305.
    Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc., et al. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Quiros, Secretary of Labor and Human Resources.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 1079.] Motion of Migrant Legal Action Program, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 80-2146.
    Florida v. Royer.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 1079.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for additional time for oral argument granted, and five additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondent also allotted an additional five minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 81-184.
    United States v. Security Industrial Bank et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 454 U. S. 1122.] Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 81-334.
    Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 1141.] Motion of the parties to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 81-411.
    Jackson Transit Authority et al. v. Local Division 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO-CLC.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 1079.] Motion of Railway Labor Executives’ Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 81-430.
    Illinois v. Gates et ux.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 1140.] Motion of petitioner for leave to amend or enlarge question presented for review denied.


text:
    No. 81-485.
    Hillsboro National Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certio-rari granted, ante, p. 906.] Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 81-525.
    Bowen v. United States Postal Service et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 1097.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted. Request for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 81-876.
    St. Luke’s Federation of Nurses & Health Professionals v. Presbyterian/St. Luke’s Medical Center; Beth Israel Federation of Nurses & Health Professionals v. Beth Israel Hospital and Geriatric Center; and St. Anthony Federation of Nurses & Health Professionals v. St. Anthony Hospital Systems.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 81-912.
    No. 81-1020.
    No. 81-1268.
    Click et al. v. Idaho ex rel. Evans, Governor of Idaho, et al. Exxon Corp. et al. v. Eagerton, Commissioner of Revenue of Alabama, et al. Exchange Oil & Gas Corp. et al. v. Eagerton, Commissioner of Revenue of Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho;

Sup. Ct. Ala.; and

Sup. Ct. Ala. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 81-930.
    United States v. Bliss Dairy, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 906.] Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 81-6020.
    In re Ma.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 81-773.
    North Dakota v. United States.
   Appeal from C. A. 8th Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 81-802.
    City of Lockhart v. United States et al.
   Appeal from D. C. D. C. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 81-1008.
    Burlington Northern Inc. et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 81-1222.
    United States v. Generix Drug Corp. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 81-1244.
    Hensley et al. v. Eckerhart et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 81-1271.
    Falls City Industries, Inc. v. Vanco Beverage, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 80-1527.
    Lummis, Temporary Administrator, et al. v. Los Angeles Airways, Inc.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 14th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-152.
    Weit et al. v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Company of Chicago et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-373.
    No. 81-374.
    Bridgeport Firefighters for Merit Employment, Inc., et al. v. Association Against Discrimination in Employment, Inc., et al.; and City of Bridgeport et al. v. Association Against Discrimination in Employment, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 647 F. 2d 256.


text:
    No. 81-789.
    Rushen, Director, California Department of Corrections, et al. v. Taylor et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-836.
    Leicht v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-926.
    Connecticut v. Gordon.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-942.
    Montana Wilderness Assn. et al. v. United States Forest Service et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-987.
    Wright Line, a division of Wright Line, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1046.
    Gomez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1060.
    Siegel v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1081.
    Bruschi et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1123.
    Catalina v. City of Columbus, Ohio, et al.; and Ohio ex rel. Catalina v. Moody, Mayor of Columbus, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1126.
    Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 728 et al. v. Allen et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1127.
    F. W. Woolworth Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1228.
    Watkins et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1247.
    Spieler v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1248.
    Denningham v. Denningham.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1252.
    Boggs v. McDonald et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1258.
    Shaheen et al. v. Clarkson Company Ltd., Trustee in Bankruptcy, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1266.
    Ivie et al. v. Brown.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1276.
    McLister v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1277.
    McGuinn v. Crist, Warden, Montana State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1279.
    Brown et al., dba Thunderguards Motorcycle Club v. County Commissioners of Kent County, Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1280.
    Dumas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1286.
    California et al. v. Standard Oil Company of California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1342.
    Cowetta News, Inc., dba Playmate Visual Center v. City of Memphis.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1364.
    Eaton v. Drake University et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1398.
    Skruzny v. Myers et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1401.
    Schmidt v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1403.
    Tage v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1412.
    Connor v. Phillips, Administrator, et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1424.
    Carney v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1429.
    Longo v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1440.
    Rhodes et al. v. Stewart et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1443.
    Dressel v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1451.
    Maynard v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5635.
    Coats v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5802.
    Tsui v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5828.
    Sheikh v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5852.
    Sanford v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6002.
    Fiorini v. Abshire, Superintendent, Riverside Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6006.
    Ahmed et ux. v. Kunkle et ux.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6013.
    Hicks v. Rose, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6017.
    Curtis v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6018.
    Williams v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6031.
    Smith v. Rabalais et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6037.
    Williams v. Wyrick, Warden, Missouri Penitentiary.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6040.
    Townsend v. Indiana.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6041.
    Adamson v. Hill, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6080.
    Henry v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6096.
    Sutterer v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6099.
    Williams v. Carmen, Administrator, General Services Administration, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6117.
    Watkins v. Garrison et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6125.
    In re Nearis.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6141.
    Rodrigues v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6149.
    Garza et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6154.
    In re Randolph T.
   Ct. App. Md. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6155.
    Antonelli v. Lippman, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-868.
    DeVito, Director of the Illinois Department of Mental Health v. Harrington et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1133.
    Missouri Board of Probation and Parole et al. v. Williams et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1470.
    Meyer, Warden v. Wilson.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-900.
    Nuclear Engineering Co., Inc. v. Fahner, Attorney General of Illinois.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 81-1263.
    Devon Corp. et al. v. Miller, Director, West Virginia Department of Mines, et al.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 81-1154.
    Cox Enterprises, Inc., dba Lufkin News, et al. v. Vascocu, Judge, District Court of Angelina County, Texas, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Brennan would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 81-1270.
    Lockheed Corp. v. Schneider et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 81-1307.
    Chelsea House Publishers, a division of Chelsea House Educational Communications, Inc., et al. v. Nicholstone Book Bindery, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Powell join,

dissenting.

As I stated in dissenting from the denial of a writ of certio-rari in Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Construction Co., 445 U. S. 907 (1980), “the question of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporate defendant based on contractual dealings with a resident plaintiff has deeply divided the federal and state courts.” Id., at 909. I cited 22 cases in which lower courts had split 14-8 on the question and stressed the “considerable importance [of the issue] to contractual dealings between purchasers and sellers located in different States.” Id., at 909-910. This case presents the same issue as Lakeside, and the disarray among federal and state courts noted in Lakeside has continued. Compare Taubler v. Giraud, 655 F. 2d 991 (CA9 1981), with Nu-Way Systems of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Belmont Marketing, Inc., 635 F. 2d 617 (CA7 1980). For the reasons stated in Lakeside, I would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 81-743.
    No. 81-833.
    No. 81-5612.
    No. 81-5641.
    No. 81-5648.
    No. 81-5675.
    No. 81-5676.
    No. 81-5739.
    No. 81-5860.
    Cowgill et al. v. Florida, Ross v. Bird, Chief Justice, California Supreme Court, et al.; and Ross v. San Diego County Superior Court et al., In re Beach, Fischetti v. Ascione, Ward v. United States, Caraballo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Bailey v. Redman, Warden, Delaware Correctional Center, et al., Gallo v. Massachusetts, Crenshaw v. United States et al.,
   454 U. S. 1134;

454 U. S. 1147;

ante, p. 906;

454 U. S. 1135;

ante, p. 922;

454 U. S. 1153;

454 U. S. 1153;

454 U. S. 1155; and

ante, p. 912. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    March 3, 1982
    No. 81-1309.
    Reinstein v. Superior Court Department of the Trial Court of Massachusetts.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    March 8, 1982
    No. 81-865.
    Metrocentre Improvement District No. 1, City of Little Rock, Arkansas v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
   Affirmed on appeal from C. A. 8th Cir.

Justice Blackmun, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O’Connor would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 81-1315.
    Westphalen v. City of Chicago et al.
   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. 81-6055.
    Hernandez v. Department of Labor and Human Resources et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. P. R. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1324.
    Esposito v. Abrams, Attorney General of New York.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 80-2003.
    Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Coons.
   Appeal from Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of G. D. Searle & Co. v. Cohn, ante, p. 404.

Justice Rehnquist, Justice Stevens, and Justice O’Connor would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 81-1038.
    Duckworth, Warden, et al. v. Cowell.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions that it instruct the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Rose v. Lundy, ante, p. 509.

Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens would deny the petition for writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. 81-1098.
    Central Intelligence Agency et al. v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted. Upon the representation of counsel for respondent set forth in her letter of February 18, 1982, and the response of the Solicitor General filed February 24, 1982, the judgment is vacated insofar as it affirms the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia requiring the disclosure of the six documents in question and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit with directions that it instruct the United States District Court to dismiss this aspect of the case as moot.


text:
    No. 81-5047.
    Rodriquez v. Harris, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir.. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions that it instruct the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Rose v. Lundy, ante, p. 509.

Justice Stevens would grant the petition for writ of certiorari and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No.-.
    Gitre v. Bache, Halsey, Stuart, Shields, Inc.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file the petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89,
    Orig.
    California ex rel. State Lands Commission v. United States.
    [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 454 U. S. 1096.]
   Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to file a supplemental brief granted.


text:
    No. A-710 (81-1589).
    Hunt v. Collins.
   Super. Ct. Ga., Fulton County. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-724.
    Lordeon v. Peters, Commissioner, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Transportation of North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-746 (81-1114).
    Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Application of “undisclosed respondents” for an order to keep identities of certain respondents held in camera, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, granted.


text:
    No. 81-731.
    Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 81-1055.
    Poythress, Secretary of State of Georgia, et al. v. Duncan et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. [Cer-tiorari granted, ante, p. 937.] Motion of respondents to advance case for oral argument and for abridgement of time to file briefs denied.


text:
    No. 81-1565.
    VSL Corp. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner for an order placing the petition for writ of certiorari, brief in opposition, and record under seal denied.


text:
    No. 81-6068.
    In re Smiley.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 81-6046.
    In re Bowine.
   Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 81-1320.
    Kolender, Chief of Police of San Diego, et al. v. Lawson.
   Appeal from C. A. 9th Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 81-1251.
    Connick, District Attorney in and for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana v. Myers.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 81-638.
    Hewitt et al. v. Helms.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 81-827.
    Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.

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


text:
    No. 80-704.
    Gibbons, Trustee, et al. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 80-2036.
    Joseph v. Cannon et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6902.
    Stedman v. Maynard, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-752.
    Carey, Governor of New York, et al. v. Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-986.
    McLemore’s Wholesale & Retail Stores, Inc. v. Payne.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-996.
    Manney, by his mother, Manney v. Fare, Los Angeles County Chief Probation Officer, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1071.
    No. 81-1108.
    Vannier v. United States; and Hermann v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 664 F. 2d 423.


text:
    No. 81-1084.
    Illinois et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1087.
    Alaska v. Heffle et al.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1091.
    Pauk v. Board of Trustees of the City University of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1101.
    Department of Transportation of California et al. v. San Diego Unified Port District et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1143.
    Yettke v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1157.
    Doe et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1250.
    Railway Labor Executives’ Assn. v. Ogilvie, Trustee, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1294.
    St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Vanskike et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1297.
    Local Lodges 743 et al., International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1299.
    Illinois et al. v. Interstate Commerce Commission et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1301.
    United States v. DiSalvatore, Administrator, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1311.
    Sacks v. Indiana.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1321.
    Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Singer.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1325.
    Graham et al. v. Kentucky.
   Cir. Ct. Ky., Hardin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1327.
    National Health Agencies v. United Way of San Diego County, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1329.
    Bollotin v. Schwartz et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1355.
    Malone v. Richardson et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1362.
    Montreal Trading Ltd. v. Amax, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1363.
    Holt Marine Terminal, Inc. v. Transport International Pool, Inc., et al.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1400.
    Preston et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1416.
    Thomas v. Soares, Judge, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1417.
    Thomas v. Purnell et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1430.
    Kimberlin v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1435.
    Colacurcio v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1445.
    Peters v. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1457.
    Citizens Against UFO Secrecy v. National Security Agency.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1459.
    Poston v. Bolger, Postmaster General.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1465.
    Pring et al. v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (United States, Real Party in Interest).
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1466.
    Doyle v. United States Department of Justice et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5677.
    No. 81-5790.
    Bibby v. United States; and Reed v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 658 F. 2d 624.


text:
    No. 81-5777.
    Mefford v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5858.
    Granviel v. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5867.
    Bacon v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5882.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6025.
    Levy v. High’s Dairy Stores et al.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6032.
    Ford v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6039.
    Martin v. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6042.
    Mincey v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6043.
    Poe v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6047.
    Notaro v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6048.
    Morris v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6053.
    Hatch v. Idaho.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6057.
    Cody v. Union Electric Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6058.
    Morris v. Faulkner, Sheriff of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6060.
    Betts v. Keebler Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6063.
    Collins v. Housewright.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6065.
    James v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6066.
    Nyman v. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6067.
    McColpin v. Barnes.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6069.
    Mitchell v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6071.
    Coggins v. Austin, Warden, Georgia State Prison.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6091.
    Bozeman v. Perini.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6123.
    Currier v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6135.
    Hooton v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6165.
    Mercado v. General Services Administration et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6169.
    Hale v. Kansas et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6177.
    Sere v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6178.
    Vander Pauwert v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6179.
    Cameron v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6181.
    Bell v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6185.
    Howell v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6188.
    Magill v. United-States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6189.
    Ramsey et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6193.
    Tinsley v. United States Air Force.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6195.
    Hendrix v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-415.
    Casbah, Inc., et al. v. Thone, Governor of Nebraska, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 81-998.
    Brache et al. v. County of Westchester et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 81-6201.
    Towson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-899.
    Baxter et al. v. Mouzavires.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

with whom Justice Powell joins,

dissenting.

In this ease, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals concluded that the Due Process Clause permitted the trial court to exercise personal jurisdiction over petitioners, members of a Florida law firm, on the basis of an agreement with respondent, a District of Columbia patent attorney, to assist them in defending a suit filed against one of their clients in a Federal District Court in Florida. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that under Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 253 (1958), “it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” It concluded, however, that, by voluntarily entering into a contractual arrangement with a forum plaintiff, defendant satisfied this standard. The opinion equated the defendant law firm’s entering this contract with the solicitation of business by the defendant insurance company in McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U. S. 220 (1957).

The standard of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals would permit a District of Columbia merchant who, in response to a telephone order, sends merchandise to Florida, to sue for the price in the District of Columbia. As I wrote in dissenting from denial of certiorari in Chelsea House Publishers v. Nicholstone Book Bindery, ante, p. 994, and in Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Construction Co., 445 U. S. 907 (1980), the disarray among federal and state courts on the issue of minimal contacts based on contractual dealings continues unabated. This case, which involves services instead of goods, further demonstrates that this Court should address the issue. I dissent from the denial of certiorari.


text:
    No. 81-1011.
    Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections v. Granviel.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1318.
    Catholic Social Services of Tucson v. P. C.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1012.
    No. 81-1197.
    No. 81-1298.
    No. 81-1328.
    Insurance Company of North America v. Keene Corp. et al.; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Keene Corp. et al.; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Keene Corp. et al.; and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Keene Corp. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motions of Commercial Union Insurance Cos. and American Home Assurance Co. et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae in No. 81-1012 granted. Motion of Walbrook Insurance Co., Ltd., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in No. 81-1328 granted. Motions of Armstrong World Industries, Inc., et al. and Home Insurance Co. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

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

Reported below: 215 U. S. App. D. C. 156, 667 F. 2d 1034.


text:
    No. 81-1198.
    Minnesota v. Block, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 81-1239.
    Stephens et al. v. Black et ux.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 81-1349.
    Dellway Villa of Tennessee, Ltd., et al. v. Jordan et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent Charlie Mai Jordan for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5876.
    Williams 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.


text:
    No. 81-6056 (A-711).
    Muina et al. v. Montana et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-819.
    No. 81-830.
    No. 81-965.
    No. 81-5624.
    No. 81-5632.
    No. 81-5713.
    No. 81-5749.
    Stainbrook v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Giesey v. Devine, Director, Office of Personnel Management, et al., Gutter v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Arnold v. Marshall et al., In re Downs, Cortez, aka Cortez-Espinoza v. United States, Morgan v. Montgomery, Warden, Georgia State Prison,
   454 U. S. 1146;

ante, p. 908;

ante, p. 909;

ante, p. 922;

454 U. S. 1121;

ante, p. 923; and

ante, p. 927. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 81-5805.
    No. 81-5842.
    Chicco v. City of New Bedford et al., Moss v. Polland et al.,
   ante, p. 924; and

ante, p. 925. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 81-198.
    Insurance Company of North America v. Forty-eight Insulations, Inc., et al.,
   454 U. S. 1109; and


text:
    No. 81-200.
    Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Porter et al.,
   454 U. S. 1109. Petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    March 10, 1982
    No. 81-741.
    U. S. Marketing, Inc., et al. v. Idaho et al.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 454 U. S. 1140.] Appeal dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    March 22, 1982
    No. 81-1356.
    Jones v. Morris et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. Ohio.


text:
    No. 81-5827.
    In re Turner.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 81-6073.
    Fluker v. Georgia.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ga. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 81-6097.
    Richards v. City of Los Angeles.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 81-6106.
    Ivey v. Alaska.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Alaska dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 81-6157.
    Wolfson v. Murray 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. 76-1234.
    No. 76-1261.
    Pierce, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al. v. Ross et al. Pierce, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al. v. Abrams et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir.; and

C. A. 9th Cir. Upon consideration of the motion to vacate filed by the Solicitor General on March 11, 1982, the judgments of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit are vacated and the cases are remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and the United States District Court for the Central District of California, respectively, with directions to dismiss the causes as moot when the parties jointly so move. Reported below: No. 76-1234, 544 F. 2d 514; No. 76-1261, 547 F. 2d 1062.


text:
    No.-.
    Chicago Fire Fighters Union, Local No. 2, et al. v. City of Chicago.
   Application to direct the Clerk to file the petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. A-582.
    Wortley v. United States.
   Application for bail pending appeal, addressed to Justice Powell and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-720 (81-1636).
    Florida v. Brady et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Rehnquist and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-733.
    Oppenheim et al. v. Moreau et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-748 (81-1729).
    Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. v. City of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Application for an injunction, presented to Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied. The order heretofore entered by Justice Marshall on March 4, 1982, is vacated.


text:
    No. A-764.
    California v. Ramos.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Application for stay, presented to Justice Rehnquist, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-244.
    In re Disbarment of Ivler.
    [For earlier order herein, see 454 U. S. 935.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-245.
    In re Disbarment of Pressman.
    [For earlier order herein, see 454 U. S. 936.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-246.
    In re Disbarment of Kahn.
    [For earlier order herein, see 454 U. S. 936.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-247.
    In re Disbarment of Costello.
    [For earlier order herein, see 454 U. S. 936.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-251.
    In re Disbarment of Gold.
    [For earlier order herein, see 454 U. S. 938.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-252.
    In re Disbarment of Rawlins.
    [For earlier order herein, see 454 U. S. 1027.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-253.
    In re Disbarment of Caldwell.
    [For earlier order herein, see 454 U. S. 1027.3
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-257.
    In re Disbarment of Gotkin.
   It is ordered that Martin E. Gotkin, of New York, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-258.
    In re Disbarment of Root.
   It is ordered that Stanley Roy Root, of New York, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this’ Court.


text:
    No. D-259.
    In re Disbarment of Coven.
   It is ordered that Bernard J. Coven, of New York, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-260.
    In re Disbarment of Bussey.
   It is ordered that Richard M. Bussey, 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. 80-2205.
    Finley, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois v. Murray.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Cer-tiorari granted, 454 U. S. 962.] Motion of Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 81-150.
    No. 81-546.
    Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. et al.; and United States v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. et al.
   D. C. Minn. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 454 U. S. 1029.] Motion of Beneficial Corp. for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for additional time for oral argument denied. Motion of Commercial Law League of America to reconsider order denying motion for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 81-213.
    Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Hogan et al.
   D. C. Mass. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 454 U. S. 891.] Motion of the Solicitor General to permit George W. Jones, Esquire, to present oral argument pro hac vice granted.


text:
    No. 81-280.
    No. 81-330.
    No. 81-331.
    No. 81-332.
    No. 81-333.
    General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania et al.; United Engineers & Constructors, Inc. v. Pennsylvania et al.; Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania et al. v. Pennsylvania et al.; Glasgow, Inc. v. Pennsylvania et al.; and Bechtel Power Corp. v. Pennsylvania et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 939.] Motion of Black Economic Survival for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae out of time denied.


text:
    No. 81-334.
    Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 1141.] Motion of Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 81-389.
    No. 81-390.
    Union Labor Life Insurance Co. v. Pireno; and New York State Chiropractic Assn. v. Pireno.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 1052.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted. Motion of Arizona et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument denied. Motion of petitioner in No. 81-390 to reconsider order denying divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 81-406.
    Mississippi University for Women et al. v. Hogan.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 962.] Motion of petitioners for leave to file reply brief out of time granted.


text:
    No. 81-750.
    Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. et al. v. De la Cuesta et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 917.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.

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


text:
    No. 81-825.
    Pillsbury Co. et al. v. Conboy.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 1141.] Motion of Mead Corp. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.

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


text:
    No. 81-1374.
    Blum, Commissioner, New York State Department of Social Services v. Stenson.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent Ellen Stenson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.


text:
    No. 81-5152.
    Taylor v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 963.] Motion of petitioner for leave to file reply brief out of time granted.


text:
    No. 81-1641 (A-768).
    Republican National Committee et al. v. Burton et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of appellants to expedite consideration of the appeal denied. Application to stay enforcement of the judgment of the Supreme Court of California, addressed to Justice White and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 81-5321.
    Enmund v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 939.] Motion of Washington Legal Foundation for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 81-1500.
    In re Ching Yee.
   Petition for writ of common-law certiorari and for all other relief denied.


text:
    No. 81-1044.
    United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 81-1114.
    Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 81-1180.
    Dickerson, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. New Banner Institute, Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 81-1062.
    United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($8,850) in United States Currency.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent Mary Josephine Vasquez for leave to proceed informa pau-peris and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 81-1404.
    Briscoe et al. v. LaHue et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioners Chris P. Vickers, Sr., and James N. Ballard for leave to proceed informa pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 80-2092.
    SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-363.
    Karr v. Karr.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-672.
    Irwin v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-834.
    Clarke et al. v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-917.
    St. Peter v. Marsh, Secretary of the Army.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-950.
    Jamieson-McKames Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-955.
    Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1090.
    Reno, State Attorney, et al. v. Abrams et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1103.
    Thermofil Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1110.
    Salpeter v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1106.
    No. 81-1208.
    No. 81-1209.
    Joint Apprenticeship Committee Local No. 130, U. A. v. Eggleston et al.; Plumbing Contractors Association of Chicago and Cook County v. Plummer et al.; and Chicago Journeymen Plumbers’ Local Union No. 130, U. A. v. Plummer et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 657 F. 2d 890.


text:
    No. 81-1116.
    O. Hommel Co. v. Ferro Corp.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1142.
    Stuckey v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1168.
    Jentgen, Trustee v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1170.
    Bernotas v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1175.
    International Medication Systems, Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1186.
    Greer v. City of Seguin, Texas, et al.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 11th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1207.
    Deltona Corp. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1223.
    Cargo Gasoline Co. et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1262.
    McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1272.
    Salkin et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1316.
    McCutcheon v. Chicago Board of Education et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1323.
    Murphy Tugboat Co. v. Shipowners & Merchants Towboat Co., Ltd., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1330.
    Ohio State Board of Education et al. v. Reed et al.; and Ohio State Board of Education et al. v. Penick et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 662 F. 2d 1219 (first case); 663 F. 2d 24 (second case).


text:
    No. 81-1331.
    County of San Diego v. Nelson, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1336.
    Page v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1340.
    F. D. Rich Housing of the Virgin Islands, Inc., et al. v. Government of the Virgin Islands.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1343.
    Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1344.
    Shuffman, Executrix v. Hartford Textile Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1345.
    Simons v. South-Western Publishing Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1347.
    Chiazor et al. v. Transworld Drilling Co., Ltd., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1348.
    Falls Stamping & Welding Co. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1352.
    Romano’s Netcong, Inc., et al. v. Lerner, Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, et al.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1354.
    Mueller v. Superior Court of California, County of Orange (California, Real Party in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1358.
    Fleer Corp. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1367.
    Frierson v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1369.
    Schwanecke et al. v. Harris County Hospital District.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 10th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1375.
    Kerr-McGee Refining Corp. v. Thompson.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1377.
    Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Alaska Department of Labor.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1383.
    Haskon, Inc., et al. v. LeSueur Creamery, Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1384.
    Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation, et al. v. Sullivan.
   C. A. 3d Cir. .Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1386.
    Pacific First Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Guinasso et ux.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1390.
    Miskow, Executor, et al. v. Boeing Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1407.
    Benham-Blair & Affiliates, Inc., dba W. R. Holway & Associates v. City of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1410.
    Rehberger v. Darnell.
   App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1415.
    Butterworth, Sheriff of Broward County, Florida v. Seminole Tribe of Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1418.
    Quality Auto Body, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1419.
    Madison v. Barry, Mayor of the District of Columbia, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1420.
    Still v. Personnel Board of Jefferson County et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1422.
    Smoke-Craft, Inc. v. United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1423.
    Wilson v. Renner, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota (Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., Real Party in Interest).
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1431.
    Joint Council of Teamsters No. 42, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, et al. v. Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1436.
    Painter, Supervisor of Lyons Township v. Nekolny et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1442.
    Lewis et al. v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1461.
    Contreras et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1462.
    Great American Federal Savings & Loan Assn. et al. v. Nalore et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1473.
    Klinski v. Four Winds Travel, Inc.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1482.
    Kendall v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1499.
    Colorado Spanish Peaks Ranch, Inc. v. Travelers Insurance Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1509.
    Hinds et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1510.
    No. 81-6198.
    No. 81-6199.
    McLaughlin et al. v. United States; Touchard v. United States; and Touchard v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 667 F. 2d 1029.


text:
    No. 81-1518.
    Haydel v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1530.
    Woodard v. Marsh, Secretary of the Army.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1542.
    Mazaleski v. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-1567.
    Fagrey v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5017.
    Edwards v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5614.
    West v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5682.
    Passman v. Blackburn, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5756.
    Fasick v. Hilton, Warden, Trenton State Prison.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5759.
    Sanders v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5795.
    Cartwright v. Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5822.
    Kendzia v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5887.
    United States ex rel. Fulton v. Franzen, Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5960.
    Von Ludwitz v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5961.
    Von Ludwitz v. Lappin et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5968.
    Moss v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5986.
    Wilson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-5988.
    Nettles Bey v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6028.
    Spinney v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6044.
    Springer et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6052.
    Johnston v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6070.
    LeBright v. Christian, United States District Judge, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6074.
    Abu-Bakr v. Koon et al.
   C; A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6075.
    Long v. Smith, Superintendent, Kentucky State Reformatory.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6077.
    McDonald v. Georgia Kraft Co.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6083.
    Juras v. Aman Collection Service, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6087.
    Minaya v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6088.
    Clark v. Maggio, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6095.
    Mathis v. Montgomery, Warden, Georgia State Prison.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6100.
    Skinner v. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6102.
    Thorne v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6103.
    Kincaid v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6105.
    Celestine v. Municipal Correction Institution.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6107.
    Huff v. Bordenkircher, Superintendent, Kentucky State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6108.
    Simpson v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6111.
    Veneri v. Circuit Court of Gasconade County et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6114.
    Barber v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6118.
    Nordstrom v. Walt Disney Productions, Inc.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6119.
    Jaffer v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6120.
    Behlin v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied!


text:
    No. 81-6122.
    Austin v. Osborne et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6124.
    Tyler v. Woodson et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6127.
    Johnson v. Blackburn, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6132.
    Hamilton v. Mays et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6134.
    Hampton v. Pennsylvania et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6136.
    Grim et al. v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Champaign County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6133.
    Sullivan v. Lane, Acting Warden, et al.; Sullivan v. Landhouise et al.; Sullivan v. Burgess et al.; Sullivan v. Thompson, Governor of Illinois, et al.; and Sullivan v. Johnson et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6137.
    Bearden v. White, Governor of Arkansas, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6138.
    Beach v. Lebel et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6139.
    Bray v. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6146.
    Cooks v. Spalding, Warden, Washington State Penitentiary, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6147.
    Hall v. Thomas.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6148.
    Franks v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6150.
    Fillyaw v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6153.
    Ellison v. Delaware.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6159.
    Montana v. Commissioners Court et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6160.
    Holifield v. Davis, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6162.
    In re Gaines.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6168.
    Crater v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6173.
    White v. Thomas et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6184.
    Brody v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6206.
    Werner v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6208.
    Stoute v. United States et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6212.
    Begay v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6217.
    Mattheis v. Anderson, Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6219.
    Espinosa-Fernandez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6223.
    Hall v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6228.
    Butler v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6233.
    Gholston v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6234.
    Talbert v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6240.
    Kitchens v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6251.
    Melnick v. City of Pueblo.
   Dist. Ct. Colo., Pueblo County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6257.
    Galvan v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6259.
    Hawk v. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 81-6273.
    Howard v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.