Memorandum on First Trial Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (LDF Attorneys v. Philip Morris Tobacco Company)

Press Release
May 1, 1967

Cite this item

Memorandum on First Trial Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (LDF Attorneys v. Philip Morris Tobacco Company) preview

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Collection
- Press Releases
Creator
- LDF
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 794e54ca-b792-ee11-be37-00224827e97b

Cite this item

Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Brandon v. Holt Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1984. 59e8ee38-b69a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/2a74a754-f666-486b-9586-bcb477e3b94f/brandon-v-holt-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-sixth-circuit. Accessed August 19, 2025.

Copied!

    inp supREME counT oF TI{E uNIlrED srATEs

@ EErBr %l Er-rl
1. ChidJustico Burger

@

2 Justice Brennan
4. Jr:stice Marshsll
6. Justice Powell
8. Jtutice Stevens

10. Clerk oftbe Coun

3. Jus;tice White
5. Justice Blackmm'
7. Justice Rehnquist
9. Jttstice O'Connor

11. l&rrhd of the Courl
12 Corm^ael t

Silence is Requested



ARGUHENT - DECEI,TBER SESSION

l{onday, December 2 }londay, Decenber 9

(1) (1)
84-1503 cHIcAGo TEACHERS v. 84-6807 LEE v. ILLINOIS

HUDSON
(2)

(2) 84-1531) MICHIGAN v. JACKSON
84-1 160 PEMBAUR v. CINCINNATI 84-1539) MICHIGAN v. BLADEL

( Consol . -- t hour )
(3)

84-1640) UNITED STATES v. MECHANIK
84-1700) LILL v. UNITED STATES (3)
84-1704) MECHANIK v. UNITED STATES 84-1484 WISC. DEPT. 0F INDUSTRY

(Consol.--1 hour) v. GOULD, INC.

(4) (4)
84-1555) CONNOLLY v. PENSION BENEFIT 84-978 ExxON v. HUNT

84-1567) I.JOODWARD SAND v. PENSI0N
BENEF IT

(Consol.--1 hour) fuesOav, pe"enUer lO

(5)
Tuesday. December 3 84-1077 WHITLEY v. ALBERS

(5) (6)
84-1602 ANDERSON v. LIBERTY LOBBY 84-1198 TEXAS v. McCULLOUGH

(6) (7)
84-1491 PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPERS 84-1259 DOW CHEMICAL v. UNITED

v. HEPPS STATES

(7) (8)
84-1616 PARSONS STEEL v. FIRST 84-1513 CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO

ALABAMA BANK

(8)
84-1580 UNITED STATES v. INADI Weanesaay. OecenUe

(9)
Hednesday, December 4 35 ORIG. UNITED STATES v. MAINE

(9) (10)
83-1968 TH0RNBURG v. GINGLES 84-782 SOUTH CAROLINA v. CATAWBA

INDIAN TRIBE
(10)

84-1493) NLRB v. FINANCIAL INST. (1 1 )
84-1509) SEATTLE-FIRST NATL. BANK 84-6646 TURNER V. SIELAFF

v. FINANCIAL INST.
(Conso1.--1 hour)

(12)
( 1 1 ) 84-6263 BATSON v. KENTUCKY

84-1644 G0LDEN STATE TRANSIT v.
LOS ANGELES

( 12\
84-1601 AETNA LrFE rNS. v. LAv0rE (gctober lg, IggS)



}IOTICE TO COUNSEL

1. The Clerk shaIl inform counsel of the day counsel
must be present to orally argue a case. The Court convenes at
10 A.M. and the case is usually heard on the date specified.
Every effort is made to reach cases on the assigned day.

2. Counsel who is to argue must register with Francis
J. Lorson, the Chief Deputy C1erk, in Room G26 at 9:05 A.M. or
shortly thereafter on the day assigned for argument.
Identification cards wilI be issued to those attorneys who are
members of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States
authorized to occupy seats at argument tables. There is space
at the table for three (arguing counsel and two others). If
divided argument has been granted and two counsel are to
argue, there is room for two arguing counsel and one other.
Counsel arguing a case should not introduce hlmself/herself or
co-counsel to the Court.

3. Counsel is expected to take notice of time
Iimitations and inquiry should not be made of the Court as to
the amount of time counsel has remaining. A white light wl11
appear when five minutes remain and a red light when the time
has expired unless other arrangements are made with the
Marshal in the Courtroom. Counsel should conclude argument
promptly when bhe red Iight appears unless he/she is then
being questioned by a Justice.

4. When counsel de-sires to reserve time for rebuttal,
or when divided argument has been authorized, arrangement may
be made with the Marshal, prior to the time the case is
called, to have an appropriate signal flashed at a specified
time. When counsel have agreed to a division of time for
argument, the use of more than the agreed time by one attorney
does not increase the total time aIIotted. During argument
counsel should at alI times speak into the microphone so that
his/her voice wil-I be audible to the Justices and to lnsure a
clear tape recording. Counsel should avoid having notes or
books touch the microphones since this seriously interferes
with the recording process.

5. Counsel in cases to be argued after the luncheon
recess should assemble at the Clerkfs desk in the Courtroom
when the recess begins. An escort wiIl arrange prompt service
for arguing eounsel in the cafeteria.

6. If arguing counsel desires to have space reserved in
the publlc section, he/she must conbact the Marshalrs Office
afier completion and return of the Argument Form to the CIerk.
A letter concerning reservations, ihcluding the names of
guests, should be sent to: Honorable AIfred Wong, Marshal,
Supreme Court of the Unlted Stabes, Washington, D.C. 20543.

7. Appropriate attire for counsel is conservative
business dress. If formal attire is worn, it should conform
with custom.

JOSEPH F. SPANI0L, JR., CLERK

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Memorandum on First Trial Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (LDF Attorneys v. Philip Morris Tobacco Company)

Collection

Creator

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in