text:
    No. 88-5319.
    Lego v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom

Justice Brennan joins, dissenting.

I

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976) (Marshall J., dissenting), I would grant the petition for certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case. Even if I did not take this view, I would grant the petition in order to resolve the question whether a state court, when recognizing a new federal constitutional rule governing criminal procedure, is bound by the retroactivity principles fashioned by this Court, and if so, whether the principle of retroactivity announced in Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314 (1987), applies to a state-court decision recognizing such a rule, notwithstanding the state court’s preGriffith determination that, under the retroactivity decisions of this Court then in force, the new rule would be given prospective application only.

II

In March 1984, the petitioner was tried in state court for murder. During voir dire, the petitioner proposed that the trial court ask the venirepersons whether they “believe[d] in the presumption of innocence as it applies to a person charged with a crime.” The trial court refused. The petitioner was subsequently convicted and, after a death penalty hearing, sentenced to death. In his direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the trial court’s refusal to ask the proposed question violated People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472, 469 N. E. 2d 1062 (1984), which was issued approximately six months after the petitioner’s trial concluded. Zehr held that a criminal defendant is deprived of his right to “a fair and impartial jury” by a trial court’s refusal to question prospective jurors on their view on the presumption of innocence. Id., at 477, 469 N. E. 2d, at 1064.

The Illinois Supreme Court rejected the petitioner’s claim, noting that in People v. Britz, 112 Ill. 2d 314, 493 N. E. 2d 575 (1986), it had held that Zehr would not be applied retroactively because it ‘“represented a change in Illinois law.’” 116 Ill. 2d 323, 338, 507 N. E. 2d 800, 805 (1987) (quoting Britz, supra, at 319, 493 N. E. 2d, at 577). Justice Simon dissented, finding that Britz could not be squared with this Court’s subsequent decision in Griffith. In Griffith, the Court held that decisions announcing new constitutional rules governing criminal procedure are “to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final.” 479 U. S., at 328. In so doing, the Court explicitly abandoned the “clear break” exception, under which a new constitutional rule would not be applied retroactively if it represented a substantial departure from past precedent or accepted practice. Ibid.

As noted above, the Illinois Supreme Court’s Britz decision is based on this now-discredited “clear break” exception, but the state court nonetheless insisted on applying it in the petitioner’s case for reasons not made clear until People v. Hams, 123 Ill. 2d 113, 526 N. E. 2d 335 (1988), cert. denied sub nom. Wilson v. Illinois, ante, at 902. There, the state court explained: “Griffith was not the law on retroactivity at the time this court decided Britz. We do not read Griffith as requiring us to reconsider our earlier holding in Britz.” Harris, supra, at 130, 526 N. E. 2d, at 341 (emphasis in original). - In other words, the state court believes that it need not apply Griffith’s retroactivity rule retroactively.

The difficulty with this view, in my judgment, is that it appears to contradict the very premise of the ■ Griffith decision, namely, that “failure to apply a newly declared constitutional rule to criminal cases pending on direct review violates basic norms of constitutional adjudication.” 479 U. S., at 322. Not the least, it “creates the . . . problem of not treating similarly situated defendants the same.” Id., at 327.

I am unpersuaded by the respondent’s contention that the Illinois Supreme Court was free to ignore this Court’s retroactivity principles because Zehr was a ruling on state, rather than federal, law. This assertion is belied by the fact that, in Harris, the state court understood itself to be bound by federal retroactivity precedents. 123 Ill. 2d, at 129, 526 N. E. 2d, at 341 (“[A]t the time Britz was decided this court correctly followed the applicable law on retroactivity as articulated by the United States Supreme Court”). And, as explained in People v. Erickson, 117 Ill. 2d 271, 513 N. E. 2d 367 (1987), the state court looks to this Court’s retroactivity precedents only when the rule announced is of federal constitutional dimension. See id., at 289, 513 N. E. 2d, at 374 (“Because Griffith addresses a rule which pertains to a constitutional right and the defendant herein seeks retroactive application of a rule which pertains to a statutory right, we do not deem Griffith controlling”). It is proper to assume, therefore, that Zehr recognizes a federal right.

In any event, this Court typically retains a role when the state court “has been influenced by an accompanying interpretation of federal law.” Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering, P. C., 467 U. S. 138, 152 (1984). Indeed, where it appears, as it does here, that the “state court has proceeded on an incorrect perception of federal law,” this Court has stepped in and “reviewed the federal question on which the state-law determination appears to have been premised.” Ibid. Thus, even if Zehr is premised on state law, the Court may consider the retroactivity of that decision because the Illinois Supreme Court looked solely to our precedents in making its retroactivity determination.

Because the instant case and People v. Harris, supra, raise a substantial issue of federal retroactivity law, I would grant the petitions for certiorari in both cases. I dissent.

      Indeed, the only question for the state court in Harris was whether the applicable retroactivity precedent for a post -Griffith claim based on Zehr is Griffith itself or a series of cases beginning with Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965), and culminating with United States v. Johnson, 457 U. S. 537 (1982).


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 87-6489.
    Howard v. City of Fort Myers, Florida, et al., 486 U. S. 1044.
   Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 87-1149.
    Reagin v. Terry et al., 485 U. S. 906 and 1015.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    October 13, 1988
    No. A-289.
    Bell v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending the timely filing and disposition by this Court of a petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.


text:
    October 17, 1988
    No. 86-1034.
    Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 479 U. S. 1082; questions certified, 484 U. S. 383.] Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Inc., 236 Va. 168, 372 S. E. 2d 618 (1988).


text:
    No. D-710.
    In re Disbarment of Ford.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 486 U. S. 1030.]


text:
    No. D-715.
    In re Disbarment of Youts.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 486 U. S. 1052.]


text:
    No. D-737.
    In re Disbarment of Weatherly.
   It is ordered that Gerald Weatherly, of Dallas, Tex., 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-738.
    In re Disbarment of Burke.
   It is ordered that Jerome Joseph Burke, Jr., of West Hempstead, 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-739.
    In re Disbarment of Benjamin.
   Motion of Ronald R. Benjamin to be suspended from the practice of law in this Court for six months, nunc pro tunc, denied. It is ordered that Ronald R. Benjamin, of Binghamton, 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. 87-201.
    Mansell v. Mansell.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 487 U. S. 1217.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae out of time granted.


text:
    No. 87-1245.
    Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 485 U. S. 958.] Motion of appellant for leave to file a reply brief out of time denied.


text:
    No. 87-1383.
    United States v. Halper.
   D. C. S. D. N. Y. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 486 U. S. 1053.] John G. Roberts, Jr., Esq., of Alexandria, Va., a member of the Bar of this Court, is invited to brief and argue this case as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below.


text:
    No. 87-1868.
    Mead Corp. v. Tilley et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 815.] Motion of respondents to substitute Richard H. Wall, Executor of the Estate of David H. Wall, in place of David H. Wall, deceased, denied.


text:
    No. 87-5765.
    Stanford v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. The order of October 11, 1988 [ante, p. 887], granting the petition for writ of certiorari is amended to read as follows: Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question VIII presented by the petition and case set for oral argument in tandem with No. 87-6026, Wilkins v. Missouri [certiorari granted, 487 U. S. 1233], in place of No. 87-5666, High v. Zant, Warden [certiorari granted, 487 U. S. 1233].


text:
    No. 88-348.
    New Orleans Public Service Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 88-5270.
    In re Dennis.
   Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 88-389.
    Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts.
   Appeal from C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of appellee for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 88-10.
    Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-155.
    Texas v. Johnson.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-40.
    United States v. Zolin et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.

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


text:
    No. 87-2006.
    Illinois v. Madison.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-2111.
    Easter House v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7203.
    Burton v. Evans.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7226.
    Gibbons v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7244.
    Aaron v. Sullivan, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7254.
    Murphy v. Hedrick, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7282.
    Macioce v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-121.
    Barnette et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-146.
    Matos v. LeFevre, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-158.
    Phoenix Canada Oil Co. Ltd. v. Texaco Petroleum Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-169.
    Morison v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-173.
    Linquist v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-205.
    Campbell et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-255.
    Garrett v. General Motors Corp.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-313.
    Hallmark Cards, Inc., et al. v. Hartford House, Ltd., dba Blue Mountain Arts, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-329.
    Bodnar et al. v. Synpol, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-330.
    American Cyanamid Co. v. Abbot, a Minor, Who Sues by her Mother and Next Friend, Abbot.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-331.
    Lane et al. v. Davenport et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-332.
    Reed v. Mannhalt.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-335.
    Flip Side Productions, Inc., et al. v. Jam Productions, Ltd., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-337.
    Pierce County District Court Probation Office et al. v. Elliott et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-344.
    Oscar v. Clovervale Foods Processing, Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-346.
    Minizza et al. v. Stone Container Corp., Corrugated Container Division, East Plant, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-351.
    Drinkwater v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-359.
    Button et ux. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-363.
    Fournier et ux. v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. , et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-365.
    Rivard et al. v. Chicago Fire Fighters Union, Local No. 2, et al.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-368.
    Koch v. City of Hutchinson, Kansas, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-430.
    Drasen et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-457.
    Nelson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-471.
    Martin et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-475.
    De Izaguirre v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir; Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-498.
    Scarfo v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-501.
    Leigh v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-509.
    Giacalone et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5004.
    Hill v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5104.
    Harden v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5160.
    Sitting Holy v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5222.
    Gacho v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5266.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5344.
    Bobo v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5352.
    Bowens v. Snow, Chairman, Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5364.
    Sullivan et ux. v. Crawford et al.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5365.
    Szemborski v. Bonanza Investment Co.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5366.
    Taylor v. Bunge Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5367.
    Ross v. Texas et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5369.
    Thomas v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5370.
    Simmons v. Vogle et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5372.
    Jones v. Newsome, Superintendent, Georgia State Prison.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5386.
    Sindram v. Taylor.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5387.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5401.
    Cowling v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5402.
    Oppel v. Meachum, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5405.
    Iddeen v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5409.
    Pacheco v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5413.
    Peppard v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5417.
    Brunot v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5423.
    Kelley v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5427.
    Collin v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5431.
    Wisseh v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5444.
    Lara v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5453.
    Rodriguez-Quinones v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5456.
    Hurtado v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5457.
    Bauer v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5458.
    Duty v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5460.
    Servidio v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5463.
    Little v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5466.
    Parker v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5476.
    Madamba v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5484.
    Madrid v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5485.
    Scates v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5490.
    Gordon v. United States.
   C. A. -4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5494.
    Rodriguez-Delgado v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5499.
    Sandoval Vargas v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5502.
    Locke v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1942.
    Florida v. Brown.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-345.
    Florida v. Belcher.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice White,

text:
    No. 87-6703.
    Metheny v. Hamby, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

dissenting.

This case and one other in which the Court denies certiorari today — Bryant v. United States, No. 87-7322, post, p. 916 — present the question whether violations of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) are cognizable in federal habeas corpus proceedings.

I

The IAD question is one that has divided the Courts of Appeals. Most of the Circuits have held that violations of the IAD, without more, do not make out a claim for relief under either 28 U. S. C. §2254 or §2255. In this case, the Sixth Circuit found that petitioner could not obtain habeas relief for an IAD violation in a proceeding brought under §2254; in the other case disposed of today, Bryant, supra, the Fourth Circuit reached a similar conclusion with respect to a § 2255 action. This majority position among the Courts of Appeals, however, has been rejected by at least two Circuits, with a third also somewhat in disagreement. This issue has been presented to the Court for its consideration on several occasions in the past; the Court has, unfortunately, refused to resolve this persistent conflict among the lower federal courts. See, e. g., Haskins v. Virginia, 484 U. S. 1037 (1988) (White, J., dissenting); Keir v. Finkbeiner, 474 U. S. 929 (1985) (White, J., dissenting).

Once again, I dissent from this Court’s denial of review on this question. There is nothing to commend having habeas corpus available in some Circuits and not in others. I would grant certiorari in this case to resolve the split of authority among the Courts of Appeals.

II

These two I AD cases, however, are not the only two presenting conflicts among the courts over the interpretation of federal statutes (or constitutional provisions), on which the Court has denied review already this Term. In 14 other cases this Term, the Court has declined to review judgments which created or exacerbated existing splits in authority among the state and/or federal courts. See, e. g., Texas v. Modgling, ante, p. 898; Boyle v. Illinois, ante, p. 898; Lauritzen v. McLaughlin, ante, p. 898; Cleveland Newspaper Guild v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., ante, p. 899; Hartenstine v. Superior Court, ante, p. 899; Young v. Langley, ante, p. 898; Kahn v. Avnet, Inc., ante, p. 898; Feaster v. United States, ante, p. 898; Gruenholz v. United States, ante, p. 898; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Moritz, ante, p. 899; Kreisher v. Mobil Oil Corp., ante, p. 899; Robinson v. Connecticut, ante, p. 899; Stamler v. Zamboni, ante, p. 899; and Torres-Arboledo v. Florida, ante, p. 901.

I noted my dissent from the denial of review in all of these cases. Most of them present questions of the proper interpretation of federal statutes and a few involve questions of constitutional interpretation. These questions concern issues that have divided the Courts of Appeals (or, in some instances, the state courts), and require our attention when it is so apparent that some persons are being protected or being sanctioned by the federal law and others are not.

I also note that the Court granted certiorari (or noted proba-' ble jurisdiction) so far this Term in at least 12 cases which, like these, raise questions of federal statutory interpretation that had divided the lower courts. See, e. g., Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., ante, p. 887; Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland Independent School Dist., ante, p. 815; California v. ARC America Corp., ante, p. 814; Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp. v. Ticktin, ante, p. 815; Mead Corp. v. Tilley, ante, p. 815; Neitzke v. Williams, ante, p. 816; Finley v. United States, ante, p. 815; Hardin v. Straub, ante, p. 887; Lauro Lines s. r. l. v. Chasser, ante, p. 887; Massachusetts v. Morash, ante, p. 815; Missouri v. Jenkins, ante, p. 888; and Duckworth v. Eagan, ante, p. 888. It is not immediately apparent to me — as it must not be to litigants in the cases in which certiorari was denied, or to judges in the federal and state court systems — why the Court granted certiorari in these 12 cases, but not in the previously listed 16 in which I have dissented or am dissenting from the denial of review.

This is not to say that review should not have been granted in the 12 cases that will be reviewed. To the contrary: where cases present issues over which the federal and state courts have divided, this Court has a special obligation to intercede and provide some definitive resolution of the issues. Cf. this Court’s Rule 17. Rather, my point is that this Court is only fulfilling this role with respect to some of the cases brought here on review, and not others — and the method by which it distinguishes between the two is elusive, to say the least. This is the principal reason why I have dissented from so many of the Court’s decisions to deny certiorari in the past: almost 200 times in the past three Terms.

As I see it, the reason the Court grants review in some of these cases, but does not do so in many others, is the limitation placed on the Court’s docket by its resources: its finite ability to hear arguments and issue decisions in only a given number of cases in each Term. The Court would rather give prompt attention to all cases in which it grants review than grant review in a larger number of cases in any Term than it can hear in a single Term, for to do the latter would necessarily afford only delayed review in every case in which plenary consideration is granted. That may well be a justifiable course of action, but it does tend to conceal the fact that many cases that deserve review are being denied review.

It is also clear that, so far this Term, the Court has limited its argument intake to a modest number. In our first two conferences this Term, we denied review in 1,074 cases, and granted review in 32. We thus granted review in 2.8% of the petitions acted upon. Should we continue to grant review at this rate for the rest of the Term, and if the applications for review acted upon this Term total 4,650 (3% more than last Term), we will have granted review in only 130 cases — considerably less than the 170 cases we have been deciding each Term (which would likely be disposed of in approximately 150 hours of argument time and 150 opinions).

       The majority rule, holding that IAD violations, without more, do not state a claim for habeas relief, has been adopted by the Fourth and Sixth Circuits (as illustrated by these two cases) as well as the First Circuit, Fasano v. Hall, 615 F. 2d 555, 558, cert. denied, 449 U. S. 867 (1980); the Second, Edwards v. United States, 564 F. 2d 652, 654 (1977); the Eighth, Shigemura v. United States, 726 F. 2d 380, 381 (1984); the Tenth, Greathouse v. United States, 655 F. 2d 1032, 1034 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 926 (1982); and the Eleventh, Seymore v. Alabama, 846 F. 2d 1355, 1356-1357 (1988).

       The Seventh Circuit has held that violations of the IAD are cognizable in federal habeas proceedings, Webb v. Keohane, 804 F. 2d 413, 414 (1986), as has the Third Circuit, United States v. Williams, 615 F. 2d 585, 590-591 (1980). The Ninth Circuit has found that certain IAD violations are cognizable in federal habeas, while others are not. Compare Carlson v. Hong, 707 F. 2d 367, 368 (1983), with Cody v. Morris, 623 F. 2d 101, 102 (1980).

       Of the cases in which review was denied, 460 were “paid” cases while 614 were brought in forma pauperis. Among the granted cases, 29 were “paid” and 3 were informa pauperis.


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 87-7311.
    Poindexter v. Ohio.
   Sup. Gt. Ohio. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom

Justice Brennan joins, dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976) (Marshall J., dissenting), I would grant the petition for certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case. Even if I did not take this view, I believe the Court should reserve judgment on this petition pending our disposition of Dugger v. Adams No. 87-121, cert. granted, 485 U. S. 933 (1988). The petitioner here, like the petitioner in Adams, claims that a jury instruction stressing the preliminary nature of the jury’s decision so minimized the jury’s sense of responsibility for its decision and so increased the likelihood of a recommendation of death as to be unconstitutional under Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320 (1985), despite the accuracy of the instruction. Notwithstanding the similarity of the petitioners’ claims, the Court denies certiorari in the instant case without waiting to consider what light the Adams case will shed on the issues here. Because I consider such haste inappropriate, particularly when a man’s life hangs in the balance, I dissent.


text:
    No. 87-7322.
    Bryant v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari for the reasons set forth in his dissent in No. 87-6703, Metheny v. Hamby, Warden, et al., supra.


text:
    No. 88-115.
    United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Assn. (Bermuda) Ltd. et al. v. State Establishment for Agricultural Product Trading.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of Maritime Law Association of the United States for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-153.
    Texaco Petroleum Co. et al. v. Phoenix Canada Oil Co. Ltd.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of Rule of Law Committee for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-191.
    United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. et al.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Motion of Interstate Natural Gas Association of America for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-220.
    Vielle v. Baisley.
   Ct. App. Colo. Motion of Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Reservation in Montana for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-247.
    Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Finn et ux.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Motion of respondents for award of attorney’s fees and costs denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-274.
    Wilson v. Harelson et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 88-5173.
    No. 88-5193.
    No. 88-5432.
    Spreitzer v. Illinois. Enoch v. Illinois. Odle v. California.
   Sup. Ct. 111.; Sup. Ct. 111.; and Sup. Ct. Cal. 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 sentences in these cases.


text:
    October 18, 1988
    No. 65, Orig.
    Texas v. New Mexico.
   It is ordered that D. Monte Pascoe, Esq., of Denver, Colo., be appointed Special Master in place of Charles J. Meyers, deceased.

The Special Master shall have authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings, and with authority, to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The Special Master is directed to submit such reports as he may deem appropriate.

The compensation of the Special Master, the allowances to him, the compensation paid to his legal, technical, stenographic, and clerical assistants, the cost of printing his report, and all other proper expenses, including travel expenses, shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court may hereafter direct. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 808.]


text:
    October 19, 1988
    No. 87-163.
    United States Army Corps of Engineers et al. v. Ameron, Inc., et al.
   Writ of certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    No. A-317.
    Armontrout, Warden v. Mercer.
   Application of the Attorney General of Missouri for an order to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, presented to JUSTICE Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    October 25, 1988
    No. A-305 (88-5687).
    Edwards v. Scroggy, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending the disposition by this Court of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.


text:
    October 28, 1988
    No. A-319.
    Woods v. Florida.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens would grant the application.

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 the application for stay of execution in order to give the applicant time to file a petition for writ of certiorari and would grant the petition and vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    October 31, 1988
    No. 87-2058.
    Cornhusker Christian Childrens Home, Inc. v. Department of Social Services of Nebraska et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Neb. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 88-177.
    VECO International, Inc., et al. v. Alaska Public Offices Commission.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Alaska dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 88-228.
    St. Hilaire v. Maine.
   Appeal from Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 88-320.
    Kammer v. Young.
   Appeal from Ct. Sp. App. Md. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-413.
    Bovino v. Middlesex County Board of Social Services.
   Appeal from Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5439.
    Ikeni v. California Superior Court of Fresno County et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. 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. 88-5464.
    Buller et al. v. Hurley State Bank.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. S. D. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-381.
    Geever et ux. v. Illinois.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. 111. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 87-1467.
    Exxon Co., U. S. A. v. Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 485 U. S. 1020.] Judgment vacated and ease remanded for further consideration in light of Kerr Construction Co. v. Plains National Bank, 753 S. W. 2d 181 (Tex. App. 1987).


text:
    No. 88-28.
    Onwuasoanya v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to dismiss the proceedings arising out of petitioner’s Rule 41(3) motion as moot. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 38-39 (1950).


text:
    No. 88-41.
    Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities et al. v. Akins et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U. S. 312 (1988).


text:
    No. A-253.
    Roggio v. United States.
   Application for release pending appeal, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court,, denied.


text:
    No. 65, Orig.
    Texas v. New Mexico.
   Motion for allowance of fees and disbursements on behalf of the late Charles J. Meyers, Special Master, granted, and the allocation for total services and disbursements set forth in the motion approved. This amount is to be paid equally by the parties. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 917.]


text:
    No. 112, Orig.
    Wyoming v. Oklahoma.
   Motion of defendant to dismiss the complaint denied. Defendant is allowed 30 days within which to file an answer. [For earlier order herein, see 487 U. S. 1231.]


text:
    No. 87-201.
    Mansell v. Mansell.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 487 U. S. 1217.] Motion of Women’s Equity Action League et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 87-1855.
    Gilhool, Secretary of Education of Pennsylvania v. Muth et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 815.] Motion of respondent Russell A. Muth for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted.


text:
    No. 87-1939.
    No. 87-2008.
    Barnard, Chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners of the Virgin Islands v. Thorstenn et al.; and Virgin Islands Bar Assn. v. Thorstenn et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 487 U. S. 1232.] Motion of Paul Hoffman et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 87-2066.
    W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co., Inc., et al. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., International.
   C. A. 3d Cir.; and


text:
    No. 88-399.
    Hammond v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.
   C. A. 7th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 88-317.
    Duckworth v. Eagan.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, anter p. 888.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Howard B. Eisenberg, Esq., of Carbondale, Ill., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 88-5412.
    Foy et vir v. Northeast Suburban Life.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton County. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. Petitioners.are allowed until November 21, 1988, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 88-5416.
    Christian v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 21, 1988, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 88-5480.
    Weigang v. Pearl River County Board of Supervisors et al.
   Appeal from Cir. Ct. Pearl River County, Miss. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. Appellant is allowed until November 21, 1988, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a statement as to jurisdiction in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in Brown v. Herald Co., 464 U. S. 928 (1983), we would dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits of the motion to proceed informa pauperis.


text:
    No. 88-5487.
    In re Balawajder.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 88-5318.
    No. 88-5354.
    No. 88-5400.
    In re Youngs-Settle; In re Douglass; and In re Radvan-Ziemnowicz.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 87-2127.
    American Foreign Service Assn. et al. v. Garfinkel, Director, Information Security Oversight Office, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. D. C. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 88-411.
    Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al. v. Giarratano et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-1350.
    O. N. E. Shipping, Ltd. v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S. A., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7129.
    Scartz v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7143.
    Cosentino v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7159.
    Clawson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7168.
    Wolf et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7170.
    Whittington v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7223.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7228.
    Dailey v. West Virginia Department of Welfare.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7243.
    Lemeron v. Powers, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7276.
    Bagley v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7284.
    Martin v. Morris.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7347.
    Sosa v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-12.
    Morton et ux. v. Gardner, Executive Director, Department of Natural Resources of Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-20.
    Bradshaw v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-37.
    Carlin Communications, Inc., et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-120.
    VanCaspel et al. v. Corwin et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-168.
    Kansas v. Clothier.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-170.
    Bengivenga v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-189.
    Bell Atlantic v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-197.
    Ithaca Industries, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-202.
    Herrera-Diaz, a Minor, By and Through his Guardian, Herrera-Diaz v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-210.
    Murphy v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-215.
    Hohri et al. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-218.
    Pierson v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. 111., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-237.
    Noel v. Department of Sanitation of City of New York.
   App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-244.
    Olitsky v. Spencer Gifts, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-245.
    Claridge Hotel & Casino v. McLaughlin, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-252.
    Hartness et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-256.
    Winter v. Interstate Commerce Commission et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-304.
    Mayon v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-323.
    Rakowski v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-324.
    Hastings v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No- 88-364.
    Lachman et ux., on Behalf of Lachman, a Minor v. Illinois State Board of Education et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-369.
    Drake Publishers, Inc., dba High Society Magazine v. Samad et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-376.
    Nelson v. Nelson, Special Administrator of the Estate of Nelson.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-382.
    Walker v. Endell, Director of Alaska Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-384.
    Lagos v. Modesto City Schools District et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-386.
    Yellow Bus Lines, Inc., et al. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 639, Affiliated With International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-391.
    Krajewski, Individually and in His Capacity as Judge of the Lake County Court, Division III v. Kurowski et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-392.
    Stephenson v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-393.
    Team, Inc., et al. v. Overstreet et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-403.
    American Board of Endodontics et al. v. Lanier.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-404.
    Davis v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-408.
    Middle South Utilities, Inc., et al. v. Isquith et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-414.
    Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc. v. LHLC Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-416.
    Benson v. Bearb et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-417.
    Texas Extrusion Corp. et al. v. Lockheed Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-418.
    Shanks et al. v. Estes Park Bank.
   Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-419.
    Grabner v. Conti.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-422.
    Rado v. Connecticut.
   App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-426.
    Auburn National Bank of Auburn v. Sanda et al.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-432.
    Gabriel Electronics, Inc. v. Andrew Corp.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-433.
    Terrydale Liquidating Trust v. Barness et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-435.
    Geear v. Boulder Community Hospital.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-438.
    Dozier v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-444.
    Lott v. Firemen and Policemen’s Pension Fund Board of Trustees of San Antonio, Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-445.
    Broad et ux. v. Conway et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-455.
    De Wiest v. Tarleton State University.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-460.
    Payne v. Gannon.
   Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-466.
    Trinsey v. State Ethics Commission of Pennsylvania et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-476.
    Delumen v. United States Postal Service.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-531.
    Solem, Warden, et al. v. Vosburg.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-546.
    Morderosian v. Office of Personnel Management.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-547.
    Watts v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-551.
    Angiulo et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-562.
    Cole v. Wells.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-563.
    Kramer v. Department of Commerce.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-566.
    Thame v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir.' Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-574.
    Strand v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5005.
    James v. Tansy, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5022.
    Turner v. Armontrout, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5071.
    Holzer v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5092.
    Hoffman v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5099.
    Ford v. Seabold, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5143.
    Robinson v. Williams, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5164.
    John Lewis S. v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5211.
    Smith v. Orr, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5249.
    Punchard v. United States District Court.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5273.
    Reddy v. Coombe, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5274.
    Cattouse v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5322.
    Gligorijevic v. Kean et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5325.
    Fairchilde v. Earnst et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5326.
    Fairchilde v. Hodel, Secretary of the Interior.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5360.
    Shinn v. United States Department of the Army.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5368.
    Stebbins v. District of Columbia et al.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5377.
    Ferenc v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5378.
    Collier v. Jones.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5388.
    Wilson v. Mann, Superintendent, Shawangunk Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5390.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5391.
    Linkous v. Olinger.
   Cir. Ct. Va., Montgomery County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5394.
    Kaltenbach v. Stalder, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5396.
    Gilmore v. Kansas Parole Board.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5399.
    O’Dell v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Southern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5408.
    Delgadillo v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5410.
    Krohe v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. 111., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5411.
    Johnson v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5418.
    Butcher v. Johnson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5419.
    Smith v. Sumner, Attorney General.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5422.
    Neal v. City of Dayton, Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Montgomery County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5424.
    Johnson v. Muncy, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5430.
    Prenzler v. Superior Court of California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5433.
    Scruggs v. Moellering et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5434.
    Skatzes v. Morris, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5441.
    Dolenc v. Fulcomer, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5448.
    Armstead v. Mays.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5449.
    Brown v. Newsome, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5451.
    Thompson v. Southeastern Toyota Distributors, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5452.
    May v. Warner Amex Cable Communications.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5455.
    Harston v. Seabold, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5467.
    Taylor v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5469.
    Holmes, aka Richards, et al. v. Hardy et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5471.
    Johnson v. Texas Department of Corrections et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5472.
    Collins et vir v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5474.
    Roberts v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5477.
    Smith v. Barrett et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5479.
    Sohmer v. Freeman, Superintendent, State Correction Institution (and Diagnostic and Classification Center) at Camp Hill, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5482.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5493.
    Stephenson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5501.
    Castano et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5503.
    Gensler v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5511.
    Bigg v. Office of Personnel Management.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5518.
    Ferrell v. Tate, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, Chillicothe, Ohio.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5525.
    Kuntze v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5527.
    No. 88-5528.
    No. 88-5529.
    Leisure v. United States; Leisure v. United States; and Leisure v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5533.
    Anderson v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5535.
    Apodaca v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5537.
    Boggs v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5541.
    King v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5553.
    Bush v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5554.
    Birdsell v. Schmidt et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5564.
    Fleming v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5567.
    Schardar v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5571.
    Orchard v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5585.
    Whitten v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5587.
    Zavala-Serra v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5637.
    Barber v. Cooper, Superintendent, Shadow Mountain Correctional Facility, Canon City, Colorado, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1908.
    Novak v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

dissenting.

A question presented in this case is whether a district court’s finding of a likelihood of confusion in a trademark infringement matter under § 43(a) of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 60 Stat. 441, 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a), is reviewable under the “clearly erroneous” standard, as a finding of fact, or de novo, as a conclusion of law. I have noted before that federal courts disagree over this question. See Euroquilt, Inc. v. Scandia Down Corp., 475 U. S. 1147 (1986) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Elby’s Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc. v. Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc., 459 U. S. 916 (1982) (same). I would grant certiorari to resolve the conflict.


text:
    No. 87-1951.
    Michigan v. Brower.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 88-242.
    Cooley v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-340.
    Perumal et al. v. Saddleback Valley Unified School District et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-371.
    Vermont v. Preston.
   Sup. Ct. Vt. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma.pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-387.
    Alcan Aluminio do Brasil, S. A. v. Hernandez.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-427.
    Harmon et al. v. Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 88-441.
    Kozakiewicz et al. v. Boring et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5519.
    Salinas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner to file portions of petition for writ of certiorari under seal granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5001.
    No. 88-5162.
    No. 88-5342.
    No. 88-5382.
    No. 88-5406.
    No. 88-5420.
    No. 88-5443.
    No. 88-5445.
    No. 88-5446.
    Duncan v. Tennessee. Little v. Texas. Lightbourne v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al. Melton v. California. Holiday v. Georgia. Harrell v. Alabama. Smith v. Indiana. Dyer v. California. Cole v. Mississippi.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn.; Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; C. A. 11th Cir.; Sup. Ct. Cal.; Sup. Ct. Ga.; Ct. Crim. App. Ala.; Sup. Ct. Ind.; Sup. Ct. Cal.; and Sup. Ct. Miss. 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 sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 87-2097.
    Cardin v. Maryland, ante, p. 827.
   Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 87-5734.
    Sindram v. Reading, 484 U. S. 1013.
   Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied. Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    November 2, 1988
    No. 88-5498.
    Quincy v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    No. 88-5815 (A-359).
    Franklin v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied. 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 the application for stay of execution and the petition for writ of certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    November 7, 1988
    No. 87-451.
    Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Westside Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Stevenson Associates et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    No. 88-461.
    Kimber Petroleum Corp. v. Daggett, Acting Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. J. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 88-477.
    Monastero et al. v. Nebraska.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Neb. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 88-478.
    Sterner et al. v. Jones et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Va. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon , the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


author: Justice Brennan,

text:
    No. A-363.
    No. A-366.
    Daugherty v. Florida et al.; and Daugherty v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   Applications for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Justice Stevens would grant the applications.

Justice Brennan,

with whom

Justice Marshall joins, and with whom Justice Blackmun joins as to Part II, dissenting.

I

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227 (1976), I would grant the stay of execution.

II

Even were I not of the foregoing view, I would vote to grant Mr. Daugherty’s applications for a stay of execution and hold his case pending our decision in Adams v. Dugger, No. 87-121, cert. granted, 485 U. S. 933 (1988). I reach this conclusion not only because of the similarity of the claims raised by Adams and Daugherty, but also because I do not see a basis for distinguishing Daugherty’s case from others that we already have agreed to hold for Adams.

In September of this year, we granted a stay of execution in Preston v. Florida, 487 U. S. 1265, on the assumption that we would hold Preston’s case pending decision in Adams. In Preston, the prosecutor and trial judge had made statements emphasizing that the jury’s sentence was merely advisory and that the judge remained responsible for the sentence ultimately imposed. Since we granted the stay without knowing the precise nature of those remarks (neither party quoted them to us), we do not know whether the statements made at Daugherty’s sentencing hearing were any different from those made at Preston’s. Given this uncertainty, we are hardly in a position to deny Daugherty’s application for a stay on the ground that Preston’s Caldwell claim, Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320 (1985), was more substantial than Daugherty’s.

In this case, the prosecutor told that jury that its verdict was “advisory,” that the trial judge had the “final say” as to the sentence, and that the judge “is the last person who will consider what the penalty is going to be” and thus serves as a “buffer” to make sure that mistakes do not occur. Application 17. Several cases that we have held for Adams present facts strikingly similar to these. In Ford v. Dugger, No. 88-5582, for example, the judge told the jury several times that its sentence was “advisory” and “not binding on the court.” Pet. for Cert, in No. 88-5582, p. 11. In Spisak v. Ohio, No. 88-5169, the judge stated that the jury’s recommendation was “just that, a recommendation,” and that “the final decision is placed by law upon the court.” Pet. for Cert, in No. 88-5169, p. 15. The jury in Grossman v. Florida, No. 88-5136, learned from the prosecutor that the “judge is the one” who makes the sentencing decision and “ultimately passes sentence,” that the jury’s “recommendation to him is that only, a recommendation,” and that “the judge will do that” (that is, impose the sentence of death), Pet. for Cert, in No. 88-5136, p. 10; in response, the judge told the jury: “As you have been told, the final decision as to what punishment shall be imposed is the responsibility of the judge.” Id., at 11. Finally, in Harich v. Dugger, No. 88-5216, the judge told the jury that its verdict was merely a “recommendation to the Court,” that the court “pronounces whatever sentence it sees fit,” that “the penalty is for the court to decide,” and that the “final decision as to . . . punishment . . . rests solely upon the judge.” Brief in Opposition in No. 88-5216, p. 3. I am unable to conclude that the jury in Daugherty’s case received a message significantly different from that received by the juries in Ford, Spisak, Grossman, and Harich.

The difference between those four cases and this one is that a warrant has been issued for Mr. Daugherty’s execution whereas none had been issued in those other cases. I hope, however, that this does not count for us as a relevant difference. We held Ford, Spisak, Grossman, and Harich for a reason; we held them because our decision in Adams might shed new light on, or destroy altogether, the conclusions of the courts below. We did not refuse to hold them because their results were unlikely to change after Adams. I should think that, where the question is whether a man lives or dies, we should be if anything more willing to allow that a pending case might shed new light on his case.

In any event, Preston, like this case, involved an application for a stay — and we granted it.


text:
    No. D-699.
    In re Disbarment of Hopkins.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 485 U. S. 1002.]


text:
    No. D-726.
    In re Disbarment of Chowaniec.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 487 U. S. 1249.]


text:
    No. D-727.
    In re Disbarment of Blumthal.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 487 U. S. 1249.],


text:
    No. D-740.
    In re Disbarment of Smith.
   It is ordered that Russell B. Smith III, of Houston, Tex., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 87-1022.
    No. 87-1112.
    Board of Estimate of City of New York et al. v. Morris et al.; and Ponterio v. Morris et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 485 U. S. 986.] Motion of appellant Frank V. Ponterio for divided argument and for additional timé for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 87-1437.
    Blanton et al. v. City of North Las Vegas, Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. [Certiorari granted, 487 U. S. 1203.] Motion of City of Las Vegas, Nev., for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 87-1614.
    No. 87-1639.
    No. 87-1668.
    Martin et al. v. Wilks et al.; Personnel Board of Jefferson County, Alabama, et al. v. Wilks et al.; and Arrington et al. v. Wilks et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 487 U. S. 1204.] Motion of petitioners for leave to file a reply brief out of time granted.


text:
    No. 87-1622.
    No. 87-1697.
    No. 87-1711.
    Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation et al.; Wilkinson v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation et al.; and County of Yakima et al. v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 487 U. S. 1204.] Motion of petitioner Philip Brendale for reconsideration of order denying motion for additional time for oral argument and for divided argument [ante, p. 886] denied.


text:
    No. 87-1848.
    City of Dallas et al. v. Stanglin, Individually and dba Twilight Skating Rink.
   Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 815.] Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 87-1882.
    Neitzke et al. v. Williams.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 816.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that George A. Rutherglen, Esq., of Charlottesville, Va., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 88-5054.
    Sullivan v. Sullivan, ante, p. 812.
   Motion of appellant for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.


text:
    No. 88-5526.
    Betka v. A-T Industries, Inc., et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ore. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. Appellant is allowed until November 28, 1988, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a statement as to jurisdiction in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in Brown v. Herald Co., 464 U. S. 928 (1983), we would dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits of the motion to proceed informa pauperis.


text:
    No. 88-5563.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 28, 1988, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 88-5546.
    In re Mitchell.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 88-5397.
    No. 88-5428.
    No. 88-5429.
    In re McDonald; In re McDonald; and In re McDonald.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 87-6997.
    Carella v. California.
   Appeal from App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., Los Angeles County. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed in fonna pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.

      [Reporter’s Note: For amendment of this order, see post, p. 964.]


text:
    No. 88-293.
    Community for Creative Non-Violence et al. v. Reid.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-1729.
    Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument in tandem with No. 88-454, United States v. Monsanto, infra.


text:
    No. 87-2084.
    No. 88-214.
    Jett v. Dallas Independent School District; and Dallas Independent School District v. Jett.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted in No. 87-2084 limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. Certiorari granted in No. 88-214. Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 88-357.
    Maleng, King County Prosecuting Attorney, et al. v. Cook.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-454.
    United States v. Monsanto.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument in tandem with No. 87-1729, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, supra.


text:
    No. 87-2099.
    Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6947.
    Miner v. New York State Department of Correctional Services.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7150.
    Prows v. Kastner et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7189.
    Wohlford et ux. v. United States Department of Agriculture et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7263.
    Evans v. Henman, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7272.
    No. 88-5042.
    Tingling v. United States; and Archer v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-7334.
    Silva et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-81.
    Voge v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-94.
    Kentucky West Virginia Gas Co. et al. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-131.
    Washington v. Hooper.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-160.
    Cronk v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-235.
    Wolfe v. Marsh, Secretary of the Army, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-241.
    National Gypsum Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-261.
    Arons v. New Jersey Board of Education et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-296.
    Shostak v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-443.
    Taylor et vir v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lucas County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-448.
    Williams v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-450.
    Dudosh, Administrator of the Estate of Dudosh v. Warg et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-453.
    Ruskin Hardware, Inc., et al. v. Fleming Cos., Inc.
   C. Á. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-456.
    Mance v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-465.
    Huron Valley Hospital, Inc., et al. v. City of Pontiac et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-469.
    Richardson v. Peoples Natural Gas Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-470.
    Melin et ux. v. North Dakota.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-474.
    Neville v. Mollen, Presiding Justice, Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-480.
    Hammock et al. v. Plunkett, Judge, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-482.
    Howell et al. v. United States Fire Insurance Co.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-490.
    Cross v. State Insurance Fund of New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-529.
    Youngberg, dba Maki v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-552.
    Arko v. United States Department of the Air Force et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-561.
    Savinovich v. United States.
   C. A. 9th, Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-570.
    Brookside Veneers, Ltd. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-583.
    Texarkana Trawlers et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-584.
    Ramirez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-591.
    VanderWeyst et al. v. First State Bank of Benson et al.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-600.
    Ramos v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-601.
    Conway et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-620.
    Baddour, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-634.
    Krugman v. Palmer College of Chiropractic et al.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5031.
    Quintana v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5089.
    Gaitan v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5151.
    Whaley v. Rodriguez, Chairman, New York Board of Parole.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5166.
    Washington v. Electrical Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee of Northern Indiana.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5267.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5286.
    Allen et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5349.
    Anderson v. Department of Defense et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5470.
    Brown v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5483.
    Gilley v. Texas.
   Ct. App'. Tex., 11th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5488.
    De Young v. Nelson et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5489.
    De Young v. O’Brien.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5491.
    Cross v. Morgan et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5496.
    Youngs v. Lawyers Surety Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5497.
    Fleming v. Deak et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5504.
    Cirocco v. United States Postal Service.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5505.
    Holley v. Bull et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5506.
    Folio v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5507.
    Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego.
   C. A.'9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5512.
    Noll v. Turner et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5513.
    Harris v. Patuxent Institution.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5514.
    Bratton v. Monroe County et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5515.
    Green v. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, Stormville, New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5531.
    Redman v. Michigan State University et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5540.
    Brown v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5543.
    Ernst v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5552.
    Safari v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5566.
    Triplett v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5595.
    Ulmer v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5596.
    Cross v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5604.
    Rogers v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5608.
    Brewer v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5613.
    Berger v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5618.
    Mandell et ux. v. United States Army.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5626.
    Rankin v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5627.
    Spence v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5634.
    Kendrick v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5638.
    Livingston v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-82.
    Starrett City Associates et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 88-162.
    Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in fo'ima pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-229.
    Dow Jones & Co., Inc., et al. v. Simon et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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

Justice White,

with whom

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall join, dissenting.

In Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539 (1976), we held that an order restraining the news media from reporting or commenting on public judicial proceedings was a prior restraint on speech and that the State had not in that case overcome the high barriers to the use of a prior restraint. Id., at 570. The restraining order in this case is directed against the participants in the trial, not against the media, but it is likewise challenged by various news agencies as an unconstitutional prior restraint.

This case arises out of the trial of several criminal defendants, including Representative Mario Biaggi and former Bronx Borough President Stanley Simon, on federal racketeering charges based on their involvement with Wedtech, a South Bronx military contractor. On April 23, 1987, at the request of the defendants, the District Court entered an order restraining the prosecutors, defendants, and defense counsel from making extrajudicial statements to the press. The Government initially concurred in the order but eventually joined with petitioners, the news agencies, in seeking to have the order vacated. On July 10, 1987, the District Court modified its order to allow the parties to state, without elaboration, matters of public record and to explain, without characterization, the substance of any motion or step in the proceedings. Otherwise, however, the court continued the order in force.

Petitioners appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the July 10 order. After finding that petitioners had standing to complain, the court stated that “there is a fundamental difference between a gag order challenged by the individual gagged and one challenged by a third party; an order objected to by the former is properly characterized as a prior restraint, one opposed solely by the latter is not.” In re Application of Dow Jones & Co., 842 F. 2d 603, 609 (1988). Because only the news agencies opposed the restraining order, the court concluded that a prior restraint had not been imposed. The court then held that the restraining order was justified because there was a “reasonable likelihood” that pretrial publicity would otherwise have prejudiced the defendants' rights to a fair trial. Id., at 610.

By so holding, the Second Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit, which had previously refused to treat as a prior restraint a restraining order directed against the parties and challenged only by the media. Compare Radio & Television News Assn. v. United States District Court, 781 F. 2d 1443, 1446 (CA9 1986) (order challenged by media), with Levine v. United States District Court, 764 F. 2d 590, 595 (CA9 1985) (order challenged by trial participants), cert. denied, 476 U. S. 1158 (1986). That approach conflicts directly with the approach taken by the Sixth Circuit, which held in CBS Inc. v. Young, 522 F. 2d 234, 239 (1975), that “the conclusion is inevitable that [such a restraining order] constitutes a prior direct restraint upon freedom of expression.” Moreover, the Second Circuit’s adoption of a “reasonable likelihood” standard conflicts with the Sixth Circuit’s “clear and present danger” standard. Id., at 238. Because of the importance of this issue and the conflicting resolutions given it by the Courts of Appeals, I would grant the petition for certiorari.


text:
    No. 88-263.
    General Motors Corp. v. Glenn et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 88-452.
    Tenneco Oil Co. v. Kern Oil & Refining Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-5011.
    Jeffries v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash.;


text:
    No. 88-5336.
    Gonzalez v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.;


text:
    No. 88-5461.
    Campbell v. Kincheloe, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 9th Cir.;


text:
    No. 88-5544.
    Clemmons v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo.; and


text:
    No. 88-5593.
    Heishman v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. 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, 331 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


author: Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 88-5347.
    Patillo v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan,

dissenting.

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

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976) (Marshall J., dissenting), I would grant the petition .for certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.

■ Even if I did not hold this vieiiv, I would still grant’the petition dor certiorari. Petitioner was convicted of malice murder in con'riection with the-death of a teenaged woman. The record in this case shows that at petitioners sentencing hearing, the State’s only witness agáinst him was a prisoner by the name of David Chat-man. Chatman related to the jury highly damning statements •-which he asserted petitioner had made to him. These included ■petitioner’s alleged assertion that “he hated women,” that “he just :had nothing in him but hatred,” and that he had harbored a desire to obtain revenge towards women ever since eárly childhood.

After, petitioner was sentenced to death, however, Chatman wrote a series of letters to Georgia’ prosecutors claiming that he .had been promised that his probation would be reinstated if he •testified — and threatening to renege on his testimony against petitioner if the State did not live up to its end óf the alleged agreement. The prosecution told petitioner’s counsel about Chatman’s .claims, and acknowledged for the first time that while the State 'had not promised to recommend that Chatman’s parole be reinstated, the prosecution, had promised to inform the judge who had revoked Chatman’s probation of his cooperation.

Based upon this information, petitioner moved for a new trial. The trial court and the Georgia Supreme Court both denied his motion, however. The State Supreme Court concluded that thé prosecution’s failure to disclose its deal with Chatman was error under Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972). ’ However,, it concluded that the prosecution’s failure so to inform petitioner’s counsel was harmless error. In support of this conclusion, it noted that the prosecutors’ agreement with Chatman was modest and was “of a non-promising nature”; it also noted that Chatman had been otherwise Impeached by the revelation at the penalty phase of his own criminal record. 258 Ga. 255, 261, 368 S. E. 2d 493, 497-498 (1988).

I believe this factual record raises grave questions about whether the Georgia Supreme Court has correctly applied this Court’s standards for finding harmless-error standards in capital cases, as outlined most recently in Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U. S. 249 (1988). In Satterwhite, handed down shortly after the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in this case, we emphasized again the importance of avoiding error in capital cases; we stated that the proper standard of review is “whether the State has proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Id., at 258-259 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 24 (1967)). I believe it is far from clear that Georgia has satisfied this daunting standard, and therefore I would grant this petition.


text:
    No. 87-6807.
    No. 87-7005.
    No. 87-7033.
    No. 87-7097.
    No. 87-7135.
    No. 87-7188.
    No. 87-7190.
    No. 87-7212.
    No. 87-7227.
    No. 87-7237.
    No. 87-7316.
    No. 88-137.
    No. 88-5084.
    No. 88-5140.
    No. 88-5146.
    No. 88-5171.
    No. 88-5313.
    No. 88-5323.
    Wicks v. United States, ante, p. 831; Martin v. Shank et al., ante, p. 833; Young v. Alabama, ante, p. 834; Johns v. Bostwick (three cases), ante, p. 836; In re Phillips et al., ante, p. 814; Montgomery v. Indiana, ante, p. 840; Battle v. Missouri, ante, p. 871; Spencer v. Illinois, ante, p. 841; Faison v. Nesbitt, Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, et al., ante, p. 841; Smith v. Florida, ante, p. 842; Lawrence v. OAO Corp., ante, p. 845; Gracey v. Day et al., ante, p. 880; Martin v. Maryland State Board of Law Examiners et al., ante, p. 804; In re Radvan-Ziemnowicz, ante, p. 814; Johnson v. Irby, ante, p. 862; Nubine v. Texas Board of Corrections et al., ante, p. 863; Nash v. Ervin, ante, p. 897; and Gaunce v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. et al., ante, p. 804.
   Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 87-7238.
    Martin v. Shughart et al.,
   ante, p. 870. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    November 14, 1988
    No. 88-34.
    Roveda et ux. v. Hughes Aircraft Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    No. 88-534.
    Shoulders et al. v. McCracken County, Kentucky, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ky. Motion of appellees for award of costs denied. Appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 88-560.
    Mitan v. Mitan.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Mich, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5510.
    Barta v. Texas.
   Appeal from 227th Jud. Dist. Ct. Tex., Bexar County, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5549.
    Martin v. C. Itoh & Co. (America), Inc., et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5642.
    Rowe v. Department of the Army.
   Appeal from C. A. D. C. 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. 88-5643.
    Rowe v. Department of the Army.
   Appeal from C. A., D. C. 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. 86-1593.
    Shell Oil Co. v. Department of Revenue of Florida.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Shell Oil Co. v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue, ante, p. 19.


text:
    No.---.
    No.---.
    Brathwaite v. Henderson, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility; and Iowa Southern Utilities Co. et al. v. United States.
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No.---.
    Valles v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections,
   ante, p. 808. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to file petition for writ of certiorari out ef time denied.


text:
    No.---.
    Kuntz et al. v. Shawmut Bank of Boston et al.
   Treating the petition for writ of mandamus as a motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time, motion denied.


text:
    No. A-332 (88-567).
    Monaco v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Stevens and referred to the Court,- denied.


text:
    No. A-346.
    Howell v. Homecraft Land Development et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-361.
    Marcos et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Application for stay, presented to Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied. The order heretofore' entered by Justice Marshall on November 8, 1988, is vacated.


text:
    No. D-728.
    In re Disbarment of Lorenz.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 487'U. S. 1249.]


text:
    No. D-741.
    In re Disbarment of Weinberg.
   It is ordered that Samuel Weinberg, of Roslyn Harbor, 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. 87-201.
    Mansell v. Mansell.
   Ct. Ápp. Cal., 5th App. DIst. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 487 U. S. 1217.] Motion of American Retirees Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae denied. Motion of Retired Officers Association et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 87-1818.
    Badham et al. v. Eu, Secretary of State of California, et al.,
   ante, p. 804. Petition for rehearing granted. Request to proceed upon the papers already filed in this case granted. Appellees are allowed 30 days within which to file supplemental motions to dismiss or affirm.


text:
    No. 87-7023.
    Hardin v. Straub.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 887.] Motion of petitioner for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Douglas R. Mullkoff, Esq., of Ann Arbor, Mich., be appointed as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 88-535.
    Local Freight Drivers, Local 208, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Rozay’s Transfer.
   C. A. 9th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 88-556.
    Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc., et al. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 88-5403.
    Hayes v. Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until December 5, 1988, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 88-5570.
    In re Phillips.
   Ct. Crim. App. Qkla. Petition for writ of common-law certiorari denied!


text:
    No. 88-5569.
    In re Smith.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 88-5640.
    In re Sheffield.
   Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 88-449.
    No. 88-513.
    Healy et al. v. The Beer Institute et al.; and Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of Connecticut, Inc. v. The Beer Institute et al.
   Appeals from C. A. 2d Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 88-192.
    No. 88-325.
    McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation of Florida, et al. American Trucking Assns., Inc., et al. v. Smith, Director, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla.; and Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari granted, eases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 88-385.
    Rodriguez de Quijas et al. v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-280.
    McCarthy et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-299.
    Smith et al. v. Reagan, President of the United States, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-302.
    Gordon, Special Deputy State Insurance Commissioner of Maryland v. United States Department of the Treasury et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-315.
    National-Southwire Aluminum Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-327.
    Roemer, Governor of the State of Louisiana, et al. v. Chisom et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-328.
    Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands v. Richards et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-347.
    Conn v. Conn.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-373.
    Boles v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-375.
    Murray v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-483.
    Northrop v. Lease Financing Corp. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-484.
    Connecticut et al. v. Counsel.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-485.
    Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity et al. v. Wooleyhan et al.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-486.
    Diamond v. Reynolds et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-497.
    Wells Real Estate, Inc. v. Greater Lowell Board of Realtors et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-499.
    Shields v. Production Finishing Corp. et al.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-503.
    Lego Systems, Inc., et al. v. Tyco Industries, Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-506.
    Alpha Beta Co. et al. v. Nahm.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-507.
    Williams et al. v. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-508.
    Bryson et al. v. City of DeRidder et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-510.
    Smith et ux. v. Nicklos Drilling Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-511.
    Michigan v. Evans.
   Recorder’s Court, City of Detroit, Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-516.
    Liberty National Bank & Trust Co. v. North Dakota.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-523.
    Jewel Food Stores v. Merk et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-524.
    Coxsey v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-538.
    Brown et al. v. 1250 Twenty-Fourth Street Associates Limited Partnership et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari deniéd.


text:
    No. 88-540.
    Vannelli v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.
   Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-569.
    Diggs v. Harris Hospital-Methodist, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-615.
    Silverman et al. v. Barry, Mayor of the District of Columbia.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-619.
    Donnelly v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-635.
    Demaco Corp. et al. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd. et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-649.
    Cravens v. Washington.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-667.
    Sims v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5179.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5334.
    Watkins v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5339.
    Bitcheri v. Immigration and Naturalization Service et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5454.
    Muza v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5462.
    Krishnan v. Department of the Air Force.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5508.
    Satterfield v. Allsbrook, Attorney General of North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.