United States Law Week

     [||f94ce95c-0c68-46dd-b08f-a15e3b4e17a8||] 38 LW 3522 

ne A LT a sb BE le 

The United States LAW WEEK 6-30-70 
  

The Solicitor General is invited to file 
a brief in these cases expressing the views 
of the United States and to participate 
in the oral argument. The motion of the 
petitioner for the appointment of coun- 
sel in No. 1633 is granted, and it is or- 
dered that John J. Callahan, Esquire, of 
Toledo, Ohio, a member of the Bar of 
this Court be, and he is hereby, ap- 
pointed to serve as counsel for the peti- 
tioner in this case. 

730 Hill v. California. The motion of 
Keith C. Monroe for leave to participate 
in oral argument, as amicus curiae, on 
behalf of the Orange County Criminal 
Courts Bar Association is denied. 

155 U.S. v. Vuitch. In addition to the is- 
ues presented on the merits of this case, 
he parties are requested to brief and ar- 
rue the following three question: 

“1, Does this Court have jurisdiction 
inder 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731 tc entertain a 
iirect appeal from a decision of the 
nited States District Court for the Dis- 

irict of Columbia dismissing an indict- 
ent en the grcund of the invalidity 

pf the statute on which the indictment 
s founded, where the statute, although 
in act of Congress, applies only in the 
District of Columbia? 

“2. Could the District Court’s decision 
1 this case have been appealed to the 
ourt of Appeals for the District 
imbia Circuit pursuant tc D.C. 
gz. 23-1052 

“3. If the decision could have been ap- 
paled to the District of Columbia Cir- 
it, should this Court, as a2 matter of 
bund judicial administration, abstain 
om accepting jurisdiction pursuant to 
U.S.C. Sec. 3731 because the case in- 

pives the validity of a statute the ap- 
lication of which is confined to the Dis- 
ict of Columbia?” 

      

    
   
   

     

   

    

   
     

   

     

    
     

    

    
    
    

     

    

     
     

    

    
   
    

nf Cn. 01:00 

Code, 

  

   
    

  

             
    

     
    
   
   

    

   139 Lemon v. Kurlzican., The motion 
Americans United for Separation of 

wrceh and State for leave to participate 
oral argument, as amicus curaie, is 

nied. Mr. Justice Marshall took no part 
the consideration of decision of this 

ction, 

       

     
   
   

     
   

  

38 Whitcomb v. Chavis. The motion of 
¢ ACLU Foundation, inc., et al. for 
ve fo file a brief, as amici curaie, is 
ented. 

    
   

           
a } Mise. Austin v. U.S. District Ct. 
lddle Florida. The application for a stay 
ier or writ of injunction presented to 

Justice Black, and by him referred 
the Court, is granted. Mr. Justice 

uglas took no part in the considera- 
n or decision of this application. 

    

   

          

   
    

    

   Jurisdiction Noted Or Postponed 
Perez v. Ledesma. Further considera- 

r+ of the question of jurisdiction in 
case is postponed to the hearing of 
case on the merits and ihe case is 

on the summary calendar and set 
be argued with No. 4, Younger v. 

tis, No. 6, Boyle v. Landry, No. 1 
215 +. Mackell, No. 0, Fernandes +. 

re 865, Dyson v. Stein, and No. 
Byme v. Karalexis. In addition to 

questions presented in the jurisdic- 
p21 statement the parties are re- 
sted to brief and argue the following 
stions: 
1) Was it an appropriate exercise of 

fretion for the three -judge court to 

    
   

     

     

  

          

  

       

  

      

    

     

   

    

  

grant the relief in paragraphs 1 and 2 
of the judgment of August 14, 1969, in 
view of the pendency of the State prose- 
cution charging violation of Louisiana 
Revised Statutes 14:106? 

“(2) Was it an appropriate exercise of 
discretion for the three-judge court in 
paragraph 4 of said judgment to declare 
the St. Bernard Parish Ordinance No. 
21-69 unconstitutional?” 

1658 Shaffer v. Valtierra. In this case 
probable jurisdiction is noted. The case is 
placed on the summary calendar and set 
for oral argument with No. 1557. Mr. Just- 
tice Douglas took no part in the consid- 
eration or decision of this matter. 

2300 Misc. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania. 
The motion of the appellants for leave 
to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 
In this case probable jurisdiction is 
noted and the case is transferred to the 
appellate docket. The case is placed on 
the summary calendar 2nd set for oral 
argument with No. 1441. 

Certiorari Granted 
1170 Gillette v. U.S. The petition for a 
writ of certiorar is grantzd and the case 
is placed on the summary claendar. 

1405 Griggs v. Duke Power Co. The mo- 
tion of the United Steel Workers of 
America AFL-CIOfcr leave to file a 
brief, as amicus curiae. is granted. The 
petition for a writ of certiorari is also 
granted and the case is placed on the 
summary calendar. Mr. Justice Brennan 
took no part in the consideration or de- 
cision of this motion and petition. 

17123. Swann vw. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Board of Education. The motion of the 
National Education Association for leave 
to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is 
granted. The motion of the United Negro 
College Fund, Inc. ct al., for leave to file 
a brief, as amici curiae, is granted. The 
petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, 
providea that the judgment of the Court 
of Appeals is left undisturbed insofar as 
it remands the case to the district court 
for further proceedings, which further 
proceedings are authorized, and the dis- 
trict court’s judgment i: reinstated and 
chall remain in effect pending those pro- 
ceedings. The decision or. the motions to 
expedite is deferred. Mr. Justice Black 
dissents from the Court’s order which re- 
instates the district court’s Judgment. He 
would grant the motion to expedite ac- 
tion in this Court and set the case for 
hearing at the earliest possible date. 

1318 Misc. Collidge v. Mew Hampshire 

1873 Misc... Tate v. Short 
The motions for leav: to proceed in 

forma pauperis and tle petitions for 
writs of certiorari are granted. The cases 
are transferred to the appellate docket and 
placed on the summary celiendar. 

1669 DMisc.. Negre v. Larsen. The motion 
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 
and or a yiuit of eertiorari 
arc granted. The case is transferred to 
the appellate docket, plaied on the sum- 
mary calendar, and set for oral argument 

the natitipw 
LaaD UC woaalial 

immediately following Nc. 1170. 

Certiorari Denied 

216. .Messinger v. U.S. 

1115. ‘Wisnieski v. Kendzia   

1414 

1427 

1440 

1461 

1536 

1551 

1552 

1562 

1563 

1566 Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. 
NLRB 

1567 Wainwright v. Baker 

1571 Anderson Federaticn of Teachers Vv. 
School City of Anderson 

1573. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ed- 
wards 

1585 1Izziv. U.S. 

1592 Woodson v. Gilmer 

1601. Riley v. State Farm Mutual Auto- 
mobile Ins. Co. 

Tilton v. Cowles Pub Co. 

Garrett v. U.S. 

Opie v. Meacham 

Bergman v. U.S. 

In re Gantt 

Lanier v. U.S. 

Bankers Mortgage Co. v. U.S. 

Longo v. California 

Coppolino v. Florida 

1606 Harsh Investment Corp. v. Danning 

1638 Coppola v. U.S. 

18 McLaurin v. Burnley 

1618 Vasilji v. US. 
The petitions for writs of certiorari 

[in Nos. 18 & 1619] are denied. Mr. Jus- 
tice Douglas is of the cpinion that cer- 
tiorari should be granted. 

508. Hanna v. Illinois. The petition for 
writ of certiorari is denied. Mr. Justice 
Harlan would grant the petition for cer- 
tiorari, vacate the ivdoment below, and 
remand the case for the reasons stated 
in his ceparate opinion in Chambers v. 
Maronsy, —— U.S. - (1970). 

683 Ichord v. Stamler. The petition for a 
writ of certiorari is derided. Mr. Justice 
Marshall took no part in the consideration 
or decision of this petition. 

  

1600. Marston v. Ann Arbor Property 
Managers. The motion *o dispense with 
printing the petition is granted. The 
tition for a writ of certiorari is denied. 

815) PE 

1618 Cwrran v. Morrissey. The motion 
to defer consideration of the petition for 
certiorari and the petition for a writ of 
certiorari are denied. Mr. Justice White 
is of the opinion that certiorari should 
be granted. 

1753. Norfolk School Board v. Brewer. The 
motion to dispense with printing the 
petition and the motioa toadvance are 
granted. The petition for a writ of cer- 
tiorari is denied. Mr. Justice Biack is of 
the opinion that certiorari should be 
granted and the case set for oral argu- 
ment at the earliest possible date. 

Oliveros v. UE. 

Pitts v. Ohio 

13 Misc. 

373 Misc. 

389 Misc. 

907 Misc. 

1304 Misc. 
Authority 

Gelhaar v. Wiscensin 

Hearns v. Florida 

Morgan v. California Adult [||f94ce95c-0c68-46dd-b08f-a15e3b4e17a8||]