UNITED STATES REPORTS VOLUME 446 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT AT OCTOBER TERM, 1979 April 21 Through June 5,1980 Together With Opinions of Individual Justices in Chambers HENRY C. LIND REPORTER OF DECISIONS UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1982 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT DURING THE TIME OF THESE REPORTS WARREN E. BURGER, Chief Justice. WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, Jr., Associate Justice. POTTER STEWART, Associate Justice. BYRON R. WHITE, Associate Justice. THURGOOD MARSHALL, Associate Justice. HARRY A. BLACKMUN, Associate Justice. LEWIS F. POWELL, Jr., Associate Justice. WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, Associate Justice. JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Associate Justice. OFFICERS OF THE COURT BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI, Attorney General. WADE H. McCREE, Jr., Solicitor General. MICHAEL RODAK, Jr., Clerk. HENRY C. LIND, Reporter of Decisions. ALFRED WONG, Marshal. ROGER F. JACOBS, Librarian. m SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Allotment of Justices It is ordered that the following allotment be made of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42, and that such allotment be entered of record, viz.: For the District of Columbia Circuit, Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice. For the First Circuit, William J. Brennan, Jr., Associate Justice. For the Second Circuit, Thurgood Marshall, Associate Justice. For the Third Circuit, William J. Brennan, Jr., Associate Justice. For the Fourth Circuit, Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice. For the Fifth Circuit, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Associate Justice. For the Sixth Circuit, Potter Stewart, Associate Justice. For the Seventh Circuit, John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice. For the Eighth Circuit, Harry A. Blackmun, Associate Justice. For the Ninth Circuit, William H. Rehnquist, Associate Justice. For the Tenth Circuit, Byron R. White, Associate Justice. December 19, 1975. (For next previous allotment, see 404 U. S., p. v.) IV TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Note: All undesignated references herein to the United States Code are to the 1976 edition. Cases reported before page 901 are those decided with opinions of the Court or decisions per curiam. Cases reported on page 901 et seq. are those in which orders were entered. Opinions reported on page 1301 et seq. are those written in chambers by individual Justices. Page Aaron v. Securities and Exchange Comm’n......................... 680 Abercrombie v. Louisiana........................................ 935 Able v. Delaware................................................ 963 Abrams v. Salla................................................. 909 Acavino v. United States....................................... 951 Adamian v. Lombardi............................................. 938 Adams v. United States.......................................... 949 Administrator, EPA v. Consolidation Coal Co..................... 916 Administrator, EPA; General Motors Corp, v...................... 952 Administrator, EPA v. Pacific Legal Foundation.................. 947 Administrator, FAA; Sima Products Corp, v....................... 908 Administrator, N. Y. State Comm’n on Judicial Conduct; Raysor v.. 942 Agins v. Tiburon................................................ 907 A. H. Robbins Co. v. Ross....................................... 946 Airline Pilots Assn.; Archer v.................................. 953 Ajemian; Hereford v............................................. 921 Alabama v. Davis................................................ 903 Alabama; Hall v................................................. 983 Alabama; Hare v................................................ 952 Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.; Am. Fidelity L. I. Co. v. 933 Alabama Public Service Comm’n; Hodges Transfer Co. v.......... 961 Alameda County; Green v...................................... 984 Aldens, Inc. v. Miller.......................................... 919 Alexis I. du Pont School Dist. v. Evans......................... 923 Alford; Barnett v............................................. 963 Alfree v. Alfree............................................... 931 Almendarez v. United States..................................... 954 Almon v. Georgia.............................................. 910 Aluminum Co. of America; Reynolds Metals Co. v.................. 989 Alvez; American Export Lines, Inc. v............................ 274 Amalgamated. For labor union, see name of trade. v VI TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Ambach; Zangrillo v............................................ 982 Amen v. United States......................................... 919 American Amusement Co. v. Department of Revenue of Mich.... 931 American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez........................... 274 American Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. Ala. Farm Bureau M. C. I. Co.. 933 American Gems, Inc. v. Messer.................................. 956 American Marine Corp. v. Highlands Ins. Co..................... 918 American Oil Co. v. Arnott..................................... 918 American Trading & Production Corp.; Fitzgerald v.............. 964 Anderson v. Oregon............................................. 920 Anderson; Tucker v............................................. 953 Andrews v. Morris.............................................. 949 Andrus; Eiseman v.............................................. 982 Andrus v. Glover Construction Co............................... 608 Andrus v. Shell Oil Co......................................... 657 Andrus v. Utah................................................. 500 Andrus; Wilderness Public Rights Fund v........................ 982 Angel v. Clark.............................................. 968 Anker; Doe v................................................... 986 Anniston v. Scott........................................... 917 Appalachian Power Co. v. United States......................... 935 Aranda v. Van Sickle........................................... 951 Archer v. Airline Pilots Assn.................................. 953 Arizona; Austin v.............................................. 911 Arizona; Demarbiex v........................................... 944 Arizona; Edwards v............................................. 950 Arkansas; Bushong v.,.......................................... 938 Arkansas; Dyas v............................................... 967 Armco Steel Corp.; Walker v.................................... 740 Armour v. Nix.................................................. 930 Armstrong v. Mitchell.......................................... 941 Arnott; American Oil Co. v..................................... 918 Arrington; Garrett v........................................... 968 Ashcroft v. United States...................................... 966 Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co..................... 936 Ashland Oil, Inc.; Phillips Petroleum Co. v.................... 936 Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Lubbers............. 965 Attorney General; Confederation of Iranian Students v....... 957 Attorney General; Narenji v.................................... 957 Attorney General; Noe v........................................ 960 Attorney General of Iowa; Aldens, Inc. v....................... 919 Attorney General of Minn.; Dengler v........................... 949 Attorney General of N. Y. v. Salla............................. 909 Attwell v. LaSalle National Bank............................... 960 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED VII Page Attwell v. Undercofler............................................ 955 August; Delta Air Lines v......................................... 907 Austin v. Arizona................................................. 911 Automobile Workers; Brown v....................................... 948 Automobile Workers; Design & Mfg. Corp, v......................... 938 Automobile Workers; Maschhoff v................................... 993 B.; Clifford v.................................................... 909 Babic v. United States............................................ 982 Bagnell v. California............................................. 937 Baines v. Hilton.................................................. 968 Baker v. Georgia.................................................. 961 Baldasar v. Illinois............................................. 222 Baldwin v. Mills.................................................. 983 Balistrieri v. United States..................................... 917 Baltimore County Bd. of Ed.; Young v.............................. 955 Baptist; Seibert v............................................... 918 Barber; Harris v.................................................. 921 Barnes v. United States.......................................... 907 Barnett v. Alford................................................. 963 Bamstone v. University of Houston............................... 1318 Barrett; Steele v................................................. 970 Bartholomew; Green v.............................................. 914 Bartholomew v. Virginia Chiropractors Assn........................ 938 Basey v. United States........................................... 919 Bates; Cheek v.................................................... 944 Battarbee; Texas v................................................ 982 Beal v. Estelle................................................... 985 Beame; Dominguez v............................................... 917 Beattie v. United States.......................................... 982 Beck v. United States............................................. 940 Beckert; Sappington v............................................. 931 Beede v. New Hampshire............................................ 993 Bergen v. United States........................................... 953 Berger v. Berger.................................................. 948 Bermudez; Harris v................................................ 962 Betancourt v. Texas............................................... 942 Bill Heard Chevrolet Co.; Layfield v.............................. 939 Billingsley v. Lawson............................................ 919 Birmingham; Starley v............................................. 956 Bise; Electrical Workers v....................................... 980 Bishop; District of Columbia v.................................... 966 Blackbum; Martin v.......................................... 911 Blackbum v. Monroe............................................... 957 Blake v. Georgia.................................................. 988 Vili TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Blake; Los Angeles v............................................. 928 Blankenship; Kibert v........................................ 911,993 Blankenship; Snyder v............................................ 942 Blocksom & Co.; Slone v.......................................... 909 Blondes, In re................................................... 933 Blum v. Caldwell............................................. 980,1311 Blum v. Holley................................................... 913 Blum; Podrazik v................................................. 922 Boalbey v. Kindred........................................... 912,960 Board of Comm’rs; Yakima County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn, v........ 979 Board of Ed. of Detroit v. Milliken.............................. 963 Board of Regents of Univ, of N. Y. v. Tomanio.................... 478 Board of Trade of Chicago v. Commodity Futures Tdg. Comm’n.. 928 Boeing Co.; Prosak v............................................ 948 Bolden; Mobile v.................................................. 55 Bombardier Ltd. v. Engine Specialties, Inc....................... 983 Bordenkircher; Jenkins v......................................... 943 Bordenkircher; Smith v........................................... 962 Borough. See name of borough. Bowen v. Georgia................................................. 970 Bowman v. Maine State Employees Appeals Bd....................... 901 Boykin v. North Carolina........................................ 911 Braden Industries, Inc.; Cowley v................................ 965 Braden Industries, Inc.; Cowley Pump & Supply v.................. 965 Bradshaw; Doylestown v........................................... 909 Braeseke; California v.......................................... 932 Bramblett v. Tennessee........................................... 965 Breger v. United States.......................................... 919 Brewster v. Carbondale........................................... 931 Brien v. United States........................................... 919 Briggs v. Immigration and Naturalization Service................. 935 Brisco v. United States.......................................... 922 Brissett v. Macchiarola.......................................... 986 Broadway v. United States....................................... 955 Brooks v. Georgia.............................'.................. 961 Brooks v. Wyrick................................................. 969 Brown v. Automobile Workers..................................... 948 Brown; Field v................................................... 939 Brown v. Florida................................................. 902 Brown v. Mitchell................................................ 916 Brown; Rodes v................................................... 922 Brown v. Schiff.................................................. 941 Brown v. United States............................... 945,962,966,967 Brown; Williams v............................................... 236 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED IX Page Brown & Root, Inc. v. Joyner...................................... 981 Bryant v. United States....................................... 919,920 BT Investment Managers, Inc.; Lewis v............................. 916 Bucchino v. United States......................................... 952 Buck v. United States............................................. 968 Buckle v. United States........................................... 967 Budget Marketing, Inc. v. Kentucky................................ 901 Bullock v. United States.......................................... 986 Burger v. Georgia................................................. 988 Burnett & Co. v. General Tire & Rubber Co......................... 951 Burrus v. United States........................................... 945 Bush v. Florida................................................... 902 Bush v. Lucas................................................... 914 Bushong v. Arkansas............................................... 938 Busic v. United States............................................ 398 Butterworth; French v............................................. 942 Caldwell; Blum v............................................. 980,1311 Caldwell v. United States......................................... 953 California; Bagnell v............................................. 937 California v. Braeseke............................................ 932 California; Forest E. Olson, Inc. v............................... 935 California; Frederick Joseph G. v................................ 934 California; Helge v............................................... 987 California; Jordan v.............................................. 910 California; Nunn v................................................ 986 California; Worldwide Church of God, Inc. v................... 914,987 Callabrass v. United States....................................... 940 Cameron v. United States.......................................... 945 Campa; Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern Cal. v........ 906 Campbell v. Illinois.............................................. 985 Campbell v. United States......................................... 948 Canron, Inc. v. Plasser American Corp............................. 965 Canter v. United States........................................... 950 Canter v. U. S. Court of Appeals.................................. 950 Carbondale; Brewster v............................................ 931 Carlson; Department of Safety of N. H. v.......................... 913 Carlson v. Green................................................... 14 Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern Cal. v. Campa........ 906 Carter v. Kansas City............................................. 961 Carvey v. LeFevre................................................. 921 Cashin v. New Jersey............................................ 939 Castlewood International Corp.; Miller v.......................... 949 Catalano; Irvin v................................................. 955 Catalano, Inc. v. Target Sales, Inc............................... 643 X TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Caterina v. Pennsylvania........................................ 993 Cavanaugh; Neville v............................................ 908 Caver v. Hilton............................................... 954 Central Broadcasting Corp.; Government Employees v.............. 935 Central Broadcasting Corp.; Police Officers v.................... 935 Cepeda v. Henderson............................................. 955 Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee & Hastings; Tarkowski v....... 912 Chambers v. Maryland............................................ 921 Chancellor, N. Y. City Bd. of Ed.; Brissette v.................. 986 Chandler v. Florida............................................. 907 Chaney v. United States.........................,............... 964 Chapman v. Tallmadge............................................ 946 Chapman v. United States........................................ 967 Chauffeurs; Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Ark. v.................... 988 Chauffeurs; Davis v............................................. 939 Chavez v. Wyoming............................................... 984 Cheek v. Bates.................................................. 944 Cherry v. North Carolina........................................ 941 Chicago & North Western Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co.... 951 Chicago Transit Authority v. Goldschmidt........................ 946 Chief Highway Administrator of N. M.; Stuckey’s Stores, Inc. v... 930 Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Ga.; Attwell v.................. 955 Childs v. Childs................................................ 901 Chiodo v. United States......................................... 954 Chlorine Institute v. Occupational Safety and Health Admin..... 950 Christensen v. Commissioner..................................... 943 Christian v. Texas........................................... 984 Chrysler Corp.; Minson v........................................ 928 Church; Cross v............................................... 902 Chute v. United States......................................... 936 City. See name of city. Civiletti; Confederation of Iranian Students v.................. 957 Civiletti; Narenji v............................................ 957 Civiletti; Noe v................................................ 960 Clark; Angel v.................................................. 968 Clark v. Indiana................................................ 931 Clark v. Pennsylvania........................................... 944 Clauser v. Illinois............................................. 908 Clemente v. United States....................................... 908 Clerk, City of Miami; Jaffer v........... ..................... 943 Cleveland v. Warden............................................. 934 CleveRock Energy Corp.; Trepel Petroleum Corp, v................ 909 Clifford v. Susan B............................................. 909 Club Recreation & Pleasure v. Oregon ex rd. Haas................ 982 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XI Page Coats v. United States............................................. 909 Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Ark. v. Chauffeurs....................... 988 Cody; Community Loan Corp, of Richmond County v.................... 988 Cole v. Louisiana.................................................. 918 Cole; Shaw v....................................................... 968 Coleman v. Montana................................................. 970 Coleman v. United States....................................... 940,955 Coleman-Bey v. United States....................................... 940 Collins v. Georgia................................................. 961 Collins; Smith v................................................... 911 Collom v. United States............................................ 923 Colvin v. United States............................................ 945 Commerce City; Cooper v............................................ 912 Commissioner; Christensen v........................................ 943 Commissioner; Di Falco v........................................... 948 Commissioner; Ensminger v.......................................... 941 Commissioner; Greenberg v...........,.............................. 918 Commissioner; Lillibridge v........................................ 960 Commissioner; Ohio County & Independent Agric. Societies v... 965 Commissioner; Ward v............................................... 918 Commissioner, Dept, of Health of Niagara County v. Susan B... 909 Commissioner of Ed. of N. Y.; Zangrillo v.......................... 982 Commissioner of Internal Revenue. See Commissioner. Commissioner of Monroe County Dept, of Social Services v. Holley. 913 Commissioner of N. Y. State Dept, of Social Services v. Caldwell.. 980,1311 Commissioner of N. Y. State Dept, of Social Services v. Holley.... 913 Commissioner of N. Y. State Dept, of Social Services; Podrazik v.. 922 Commissioner of Taxation & Finance; Gust v........................ 910 Committee on Professional Ethics of Iowa Bar Assn.; Randall v... 946 Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n; Bd. of Trade of Chicago v.. 928 Commonwealth. See name of Commonwealth. Community Loan Corp, of Richmond County v. Cody.................... 988 Como-Falcon Community Coalition, Inc. v. Department of Labor.. 936 Comptroller of Fla. v. BT Investment Managers, Inc................. 916 Confederation of Iranian Students v. Civiletti..................... 957 Conrad v. Greene................................................... 913 Consolidated Freightways Corp, of Del.; Kassel v................... 950 Consolidation Coal Co.; Costle v................................... 916 Consumers Union of U. S., Inc.; Supreme Court of Ya. v...... 719 Cooper, In re...................................................... 915 Cooper v. Commerce City............................................ 912 Cooper; Lombard v.................................................. 984 Cose v. Cose....................................................... 933 Costle v. Consolidation Coal Co.................................... 916 XII TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Costle; General Motors Corp, v................................. 952 Costle v. Pacific Legal Foundation............................. 947 Couch v. United States......................................... 912 Coughlin Co.; Seymour v........................................ 957 County. See name of county. Court of Appeals. See U. S. Court of Appeals. Courtwright v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n........... 952 Cowley v. Braden Industries, Inc............................... 965 Cowley Pump & Supply v. Braden Industries, Inc................. 965 Crosman v. Long Island Univ.................................... 938 Cross v. Church................................................ 902 Crumpacker, In re.............................................. 933 Cruz v. New York............................................... 901 Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co...................... 1 Cuyler v. Sullivan............................................. 335 Dalsheim; Williams v........................................... 943 Daskalakis v. Executive Commercial Services, Ltd............... 967 Davis v. Alabama.............................................. 903 Davis v. Chauffeurs........................................... 939 Davis v. Georgia.............................................. 961 Davis; Moorman v............................................... 954 Davis v. New York............................................. 986 Dawn v. Wenzler................................................ 968 Day; Hayward v................................................. 969 DeCambra v. United States...................................... 955 DeJean v. United States........................................ 945 Delaware; Able v............................................... 963 Delaware; Young v.............................................. 940 Delaware State Bd. of Ed. v. Evans............................. 923 Delay v. Illinois.............................................. 928 Delespine v. U. S. Court of Appeals............................ 950 De Los Santos; Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v.................. 934 Delta Air Lines v. August...................................... 907 Delta Air Lines; Pfister v.................................... 963 Demarbiex v. Arizona........................................... 944 Dengler v. Attorney General of Minn............................ 949 Department of Energy v. Mobil Oil Corp......................... 937 Department of Labor; Como-Falcon Community Coalition, Inc. v.. 936 Department of Labor & Industrial Relations; Hawaiian Tel. Co. v. 984 Department of Professional Licensing of Mont.; Muina v....... 981 Department of Revenue of Mich.; American Amusement Co. v.... 931 Department of Revenue of Pa.; Ruman v.......................... 964 Department of Safety of N. H. v. Carlson....................... 913 Department of Transportation of Okla. v. Pile.................. 980 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xm Page DePietro; New York City v....................................... 908 Deposit Guaranty National Bank of Jackson v. Roper.............. 947 Design & Mfg. Corp. v. Automobile Workers....................... 938 Di Falco v. Commissioner........................................ 948 Diggs v. United States.......................................... 982 DiMauro v. Pavia................................................ 939 DiMauro v. Pavia & Harcourt..................................... 939 Dioquino v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Bd.................... 944 Director, Dept, of Public Welfare of Neb.; Syrovatka v.......... 935 Director,- Dept, of Social Services of Wayne County; Sherard v.... 983 Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons v. Green..................... 14 Director of County Dept, of Public Social Services; Marten v.. 1320 Director of penal or correctional institution.’ See name of director. Director of Transportation v. Consolidated Freightways Corp... 950 Director of Workers’ Comp. Programs; Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. 963 Director of Workers’ Comp. Programs v. Walter Tantzen, Inc.... 905 Disciplinary Comm’n; Wireman v.................................. 908 Distinctive Devices, Inc.; Young v.............................. 937 District Attorney for Multnomah County; Club Recreation v..... 982 District Director of Internal Revenue; Seibert v................ 918 District Judge. See U. S. District Judge. District of Columbia v. Bishop.................................. 966 District of Columbia; Morgan v.................................. 943 Dobbs v. Georgia................................................ 913 Dobson v. United States......................................... 955 DoCarmo v. F. V. Pilgrim I Corp................................. 956 Doe v. Anker.................................................... 986 Doe v. Sears.................................................... 979 Dominguez v. Beame.............................................. 917 Douglas v. Maryland............................................. 911 Doyle v. United States.......................................... 982 Doylestown v. Bradshaw.......................................... 909 Drebin v. Russell.............................................. 952 Druggists Mutual Ins. Co.; Wengler v........................... 142 Dukaj gini v. United States..................................... 987 Dunagan v. Illinois............................................. 905 Dunbar; Steelworkers v.......................................... 983 Duncan v. Texas............................................... 911 Duncan; United States v......................................... 903 Dunn v. United States........................................... 955 Dupris v. United States......................................... 980 Dyas v. Arkansas................................................ 967 Eastern Band, Cherokee Indians; N. C. Wildlife Res. Comm’n v.. 960 East West Towing, Inc.; St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v............. 918 XIV TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Economopoulos; Taylor v.......................................... 921 Eder v. Florida.................................................. 951 Edison Brothers Stores, Inc.; Famolare, Inc. v................... 984 Edwards v. Arizona............................................... 950 Egbert v. Kansas................................................. 963 Ehrlich; Syrovatka v............................................. 935 Eiseman v. Andrus................................................ 982 Electrical Workers v. Bise....................................... 980 Elio M. Rossy, Inc.; Hernandez v................................. 930 Ellipse Corp. v. Ford Motor Corp................................. 939 Engine Specialties, Inc.; Bombardier Ltd. v...................... 939 Ensminger v. Commissioner........................................ 941 Environmental Protection Agency v. National Crushed Stone Assn. 916 EEOC; Courtwright v.............................................. 952 EEOC; Fruehauf Corp, v........................................... 965 EEOC; General Telephone Co. of Northwest v....................... 318 EEOC; Southwest Tex. Methodist Hospital v........................ 947 Equity National Industries, Inc.; Smith v...................... 965 Erickson v. Eubanks.............................................. 984 Erickson v. United States........................................ 984 Estelle; Beal v.................................................. 985 Estelle; Fairris v........................................... 920,993 Estelle; Mitchell v.............................................. 910 Estelle v. Passmore.............................................. 937 Estelle; Passmore v............................................. 937 E-T Industries, Inc.; W. R. Grace & Co. v........................ 953 Eubanks; Erickson v.............................................. 984 Euge; United States v.......................................... 913 Evans; Alexis I. du Pont School Dist. v.......................... 923 Evans; Delaware State Bd. of Ed. v............................... 923 Executive Commercial Services, Ltd.; Daskalakis v................ 967 Exxon Corp. v. United States.................................... 964 Fairris v. Estelle..................;........................ 920,993 Falkowski v. Perry............................................. 936 Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Brothers Stores, Inc..........;......... 984 Fauver; Tillman v............................................... 944 Faymor Development Co. v. King............................... 905 Fazio v. United States........................................... 981 Feaster v. Maryland.............................................. 947 Federal Land Bank of Baltimore; Fetner v......................... 918 Feenstra; Kirchberg v............................................ 917 Feltington v. Moving Picture Machine Operators................... 943 Fera v. United States............................................ 969 Ferrell v. South Carolina........................................ 965 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xv Page Fetner v. Federal Land Bank of Baltimore.......................... 918 Fidelity Union Life Ins. Co. v. Perry............................. 987 Field v. Brown.................................................. 939 Fields; Plumlee v................................................ 934 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord............................ 934 First Investment Annuity Co. of America v. Miller................. 981 Fitzgerald v. American Trading & Production Corp.................. 964 Fitzgerald; Mountain Laurel Racing, Inc. v........................ 956 Fitzgerald; Nixon v............................................. 949 Flanagan v. United States......................................... 987 Fleisher Co. v. Los Angeles County................................ 917 Florida; Brown v.................................................. 902 Florida; Bush v.................................................. 902 Florida; Chandler v............................................... 907 Florida; Eder v................................................. 951 Florida; Hernandez v.............................................. 951 Florida; Holmes v................................................. 913 Florida; Mora v.................................................. 917 Florida; Rutledge v............................................... 913 Florida; Vasil v................................................ 967 Flynt v. Georgia.................................................. 981 Foraker v. Ohio................................................... 938 Ford v. Illinois................................................ 967 Ford; Sullivan v.................................................. 969 Ford Motor Corp.; Ellipse Corp, v.............................. 939 Forest E. Olson, Inc. v. California............................... 935 Forest E. Olson, Inc. v. Superior Court of Cal.................... 935 Former President of United States; Starr v...................... 953 Foster v, Lawrence T. Lasagna, Inc................................ 919 Fox v. United States.............................................. 935 Francisco v. United States........................................ 922 Frederick Joseph G. v. California................................. 934 French v. Butterworth............................................. 942 Friday; Uzzell v.................................................. 951 Fritz; United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v.................... 916 Froembgen v. United States........................................ 947 Fruehauf Corp. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n........... 965 Fungaroli v. Fungaroli............................................ 930 Fusciello, In re................................................ 915 F. V. Pilgrim I Corp.; DoCarmo v................................. 956 G. v. California................................................. 934 Gant v. Union Bank................................................ 929 Garcia v. United States....................................... 904,984 Gamer v. United States.......................................... 954 XVI TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Garrett v. Arrington............................................ 968 Garrison; Harris v.............................................. 986 Garrison; Lee v................................................. 967 Gaultney v. United States....................................... 907 Gause v. United States........................................ 987 Gayle v. New York............................................... 905 Geeck v. New Orleans............................................ 961 General Counsel of NLRB; Associated Builders & Contractors v... 965 General Electric Co.; Curtiss-Wright Corp, v...................... 1 General Motors Corp. v. Costle.................................. 952 General Motors Corp.; Geromette v............................... 985 General Telephone Co. of Northwest v. EEOC...................... 318 General Tire & Rubber Co.; Wm. T. Burnett & Co. v............... 951 Georgia; Almon v.............................................. 910 Georgia; Baker v.............................................. 961 Georgia; Blake v.............................................. 988 Georgia; Bowen v............................................. 970 Georgia; Brooks v............................................. 961 Georgia; Burger v............................................. 988 Georgia; Collins v............................................. 961 Georgia; Davis v.............................................. 961 Georgia; Dobbs v.............................................. 913 Georgia; Flynt v.............................................. 981 Georgia; Godfrey v.............................................. 420 Georgia; Hamilton v............................................. 961 Georgia; Hooten v............................................... 942 Georgia; Jones v................................................ 954 Georgia; Proctor v.............................................. 920 Georgia; Spraggins v............................................ 961 Georgia; Wood v................................................. 951 Geromette v. General Motors Corp................................ 985 Ginter v. Southern............................................ 967 Giordano v. Massachusetts....................................... 968 Gist v. James H. Thompson & Son Funeral Home.................... 912 Gladstone; Hayes v.............................................. 902 Globe Paper Co. v. Lindley................................... 938 Glover Construction Co.; Andrus v............................... 608 Godfrey v. Georgia.............................................. 420 Godwin v. United States......................................... 929 Goldschmidt; Chicago Transit Authority v........................ 946 Gomez v. Toledo............................................. 635,933 Gonzalez v. New York........................................... 902 Goodman v. McDonnell Douglas Corp............................... 913 Goodman v. United States........................................ 922 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xvn Page Goodwin v. United States..................................... 986 Gordon v. New York........................................... 903 Gosnell v. United States..................................... 945 Government Employees v. Central Broadcasting Corp............ 935 Government of Virgin Islands; Rolden v................... 920 Governor of Conn.; Hunt v................................... 966 Governor of Fla.; Turner v.................................. 934 Governor of Fla.; Weaver v.................................. 916 Governor of Md.; Picking v................................... 944 Governor of Mich.; Board of Ed. of Detroit v................. 963 Grace & Co. v. E-T Industries, Inc........................... 953 Gracey v. Miller............................................ 969 Graham v. New York........................................... 932 Graham; Turner v............................................. 934 Graham; Weaver v............................................. 916 Grassi v. Louisiana.......................................... 993 Grasso; Hunt v............................................... 966 Gray v. Mississippi.......................................... 988 Gray v. United States.................................... 911,960 Greater Westchester Homeowners Assn.; Los Angeles v.......... 933 Green v. Alameda County...................................... 984 Green v. Bartholomew......................................... 914 Green; Carlson v............................................. 14 Green v. Hopper.............................................. 968 Green v. Summers............................................. 941 Greenberg v. Commissioner.................................... 918 Greene; Conrad v............................................. 913 Greene; Memphis v......................... 934 Greene; Unknown Named Children Unborn and Born Alive v..... 947 Greyhound Computer Corp.; Int’l Business Machines Corp. v.. 916,929 Greyhound Lines, Inc.; Spencer v............................. 909 Griffin v. Maryland.......................................... 937 Grzywacz v. United States.................................... 935 Guanajuato v. United States.................................. 944 Gulf Oil Corp. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.............. 966 Gunn; McDaniel v............................................. 944 Gunther; Iowa State Men’s Reformatory v...................... 966 Gust v. Commissioner of Taxation and Finance................. 910 Guzman v. Texas.............................................. 944 Haas; Club Recreation & Pleasure v........................... 982 Haas & Co. v. San Francisco.................................. 929 Hach v. United States........................................ 912 Hall v. Alabama.............................................. 983 Halperin; Kissinger v........................................ 951 xvm TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Hamilton v. Georgia............................................ 961 Hampton; Hanrahan v....................................... 754,1301 Hampton; Johnson v........................................ 754,1301 Hanigan v. United States....................................... 953 Hanrahan v. Hampton....................................... 754,1301 Harbolt v. United States....................................... 985 Hardwicke Corp.; Switlik v..................................... 929 Hare v. Alabama................................................ 952 Harrigill v. Mississippi....................................... 939 Harris v. Barber........................................... 921 Harris v. Bermudez.......................................... 962 Harris v. Garrison.......................................... 986 Harris v. H. Schuldt Reederei................................ 933 Harris v. McRae............................................ 907 Harris v. Rosario........................................... 651 Harris v. Wilson.......................................... 964 Harris, Kerr, Forster & Co. v. Spectrum Financial Cos......... 936 Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc................................ 578 Hartford Textile Corp.; Shuffman v............................. 909 Hauptman; Holliday v........................................... 906 Havens; United States v........................................ 620 Hawaiian Telephone Co. v. Dept, of Labor & Industrial Relations.. 984 Hawkins v. United States....................................... 955 Hayden v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service.... 937 Hayes v. Gladstone............................................. 902 Hayes; Taylor v................................................ 968 Hayes v. Valley Bank of Nev.................................... 902 Haynes; Oregon v.............................................. 945 Hayward v. Day................................................ 969 Hazelwood; Ma v................................................ 942 Heard Chevrolet Co.; Layfield v................................ 939 Hebert v. Smith................................................ 955 Hector Martinez & Co.; Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v.... 982 Heitman v. Missouri............................................ 941 Helge v. California............................................ 987 Helge v. Superior Court of Cal............................... 987 Henderson; Cepeda v........................................... 955 Henderson v. Lane.............................................. 986 Henderson; Paquette v.......................................... 941 Henderson; Pennsylvania v...................................... 905 Henryhand v. Smith............................................. 942 Hereford v. Ajemian.......................................... 921 Hermansdorfer; Paul v.......................................... 950 Hernandez v. Elio M. Rossy, Inc................................ 930 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XIX Page Hernandez v. Florida................................................ 951 Hernandez v. United States.......................................... 910 Hess v. United States............................................... 937 Higgins v. Missouri................................................. 902 Highlands Ins. Co.; American Marine Corp, v......................... 918 Hilton; Baines v.................................................... 968 Hilton; Caver v..................................................... 954 Hines v. United States.............................................. 940 Hinton; Williamson v................................................ 954 Hodges Transfer Co. v. Alabama Public Service Comm’n................ 961 Hogberg v. United States............................................ 952 Hohensee v. Southard................................................ 911 Holley; Blum v...................................................... 913 Holley; Russo v..................................................... 913 Holliday v. Hauptman................................................ 906 Holloway v. United States.......................................... 935 Holmes v. Florida................................................... 913 Honeycutt v. Ward................................................... 985 Hood v. United States............................................... 987 Hooten v. Georgia................................................... 942 Hopper; Green v..................................................... 968 Hopper; Hop-Wah v................................................... 968 Hop-Wah v. Hopper................................................... 968 H. Schuldt Reederei; Harris v..................................... 933 Hueter v. Lutheran Social Services of Central Ohio.................. 929 Hughes; Picking v................................................... 944 Hunt v. Grasso.................................................... 966 Hunt v. Illinois.................................................... 966 Hunt v. Marshall.................................................... 920 Hunt v. Oklahoma.................................................... 969 Hyman v. Rickman.................................................... 989 Illinois; Baldasar v................................................ 222 Illinois; Campbell v................................................ 985 Illinois; Clauser v................................................. 908 Illinois; Delay v................................................... 928 Illinois; Dunagan v................................................. 905 Illinois; Ford v.................................................. 967 Illinois; Hunt v................................................... 966 Illinois; Luetkemeyer v............................................. 938 Illinois; Parkins v................................................. 901 Illinois; Spicer v.................................................. 940 Illinois; Walls v.................................................. 919 Immigration and Naturalization Service; Briggs v................... 935 Immigration and Naturalization Service; Jain v...................... 937 XX TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Independence; Owen v.............................................. 993 Indiana; Clark v.................................................. 931 Ingram v. Nolan................................................... 956 Inhabitants of City of Portland; Lennan v......................... 937 Innis; Rhode Island v............................................. 291 In re. See name of party. Internal Revenue Service v. Long.................................. 917 International. For labor union, see name of trade. International Business Machines Corp. v. Greyhound Computer.. 916,929 Investment Annuity, Inc. v. Miller................................ 931 Iowa; Jones v.................................................... 907 Iowa; Williams v.................................................. 921 Iowa State Men’s Reformatory v. Gunther........................... 966 Irvin v. Catalano................................................. 955 Irvin v. Nanni.................................................... 985 Israel; Schultz v................................................. 968 Ivy v. Security Barge Lines, Inc.................................. 956 Jackson v. Tennessee.............................................. 921 Jackson v. Wherry................................................. 965 Jackson v. Wisconsin.............................................. 902 Jacobs v. Redman................................................. 944 Jaffer v. Miami................................................... 931 Jaffer v. Ongie...........................?....................... 943 Jahoda v. United States........................................... 917 Jain v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.................... 937 James H. Thompson & Son Funeral Home; Gist v...................... 912 Jefferson Health Care, Inc.; Lane v............................... 968 Jenkins v. Bordenkircher.......................................... 943 Jernigan v. Louisiana............................................. 958 Jerrico, Inc.; Marshall v......................................... 238 Jim Wallace Oil Co.; Kickasola v.................................. 921 Johnson v. Hampton........................................... 754,1301 Johnson v. Maryland.............................................. 911 Johnson v. United States...................................... 911,954 Johnson v. Washington............................................. 948 Jolly v. North Carolina........................................... 929 Jones v. Georgia.................................................. 954 Jones v. Iowa..................................................... 907 Jones v. Porter................................................... 981 Jones; Ross v.................................................... 942 Jones v. Texas................................................... 921 Jones v. United States........................................ 945,988 Jordan v. California.............................................. 910 Joyner; Brown & Root, Inc. v...................................... 981 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXI Page J. P. Stevens & Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd.............. 916 Justice v. United States........................................ 920 Kail v. United States........................................... 912 Kalo Brick & Tile Co.; Chicago & North Western Transp. Co. v.. 951 Kampiles v. United States....................................... 954 Kansas; Egbert v................................................ 963 Kansas; Sabater v............................................... 918 Kansas City; Carter v........................................... 961 Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp, of Del................. 950 Kearney v. United States........................................ 987 Kentucky; Budget Marketing, Inc. v.............................. 901 Kentucky; Rodgers v............................................ 953 Kentucky State Bd. for Elementary & Secondary Ed. v. Rudasill.. 938 Kesler, In re................................................... 915 Kibert v. Blankenship....................................... 911,993 Kickasola v. Jim Wallace Oil Co................................. 921 Kindred; Boalbey v.......................................... 912,960 King; Faymor Development Co. v.................................. 905 King v. United States....................................... 939,969 Kirchberg v. Feenstra........................................... 917 Kissinger v. Halperin........................................... 951 Klauber v. United States........................................ 908 Klobuchir v. Pennsylvania....................................... 947 Korman v. United States......................................... 952 Kulik v. United States.......................................... 982 Kyle, In re..................................................... 906 Labinia v. United States........................................ 969 Labor Union. See name of trade. Labus v. United States.......................................... 919 Ladies’ Garment Cutters; Rosario v.............................. 919 Laguta v. Ohio.................................................. 952 Lane; Henderson v............................................... 986 Lane v. Jefferson Health Care, Inc.............................. 968 Lane; Scott v................................................... 986 Larkin v. United States......................................... 939 LaRocca v. United States........................................ 398 Larson v. United States......................................... 936 Lasagna, Inc.; Foster v......................................... 919 Lasagna, Inc.; Sno-White Drive In v............................. 919 LaSalle National Bank; Attwell v................................ 960 LaSalle National Bank v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co............ 970 Lawrence T. Lasagna, Inc.; Foster v............................. 919 Lawrence T. Lasagna, Inc.; Sno-White Drive In v................. 919 Lawson; Billingsley v.......................................... 919 xxn TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Layfield v. Bill Heard Chevrolet Co.............................. 939 Leach, In re..................................................... 963 Lee v. Garrison.................................................. 967 Lee; Navarro Savings Assn, v..................................... 458 LeFevre; Carvey v................................................ 921 Le Fevre; Roman v................................................ 987 Lehman Brothers Inc. v. Lilly.................................... 939 Leib v. United States............................................ 955 Leigh; McGuire v................................................. 962 Lerman v. Inhabitants of City of Portland........................ 937 Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc............................. 916 Lewis v. United States........................................... 941 Liberti v. United States......................................... 952 Licavoli v. United States........................................ 935 Lillibridge v. Commissioner...................................... 960 Lilly; Lehman Brothers Inc. v.................................... 939 Lilly; State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio Pension Fund v.. 939 Lindley; Globe Paper Co. v....................................... 938 Lionberger; Operating Engineers Pension Trust v.................. 951 Local. For labor union, see name of trade. Lockett v. South Central Bell Telephone Co....................... 947 Loe; Moffitt v................................................... 928 Lombard v. Cooper................................................ 984 Lombardi; Adamian v.............................................. 938 Long; Internal Revenue Service v................................. 917 Long Island Univ.; Crosman v.................................. 938 Los Angeles v. Blake............................................. 928 Los Angeles v. Greater Westchester Homeowners Assn............... 933 Los Angeles; Osmose Wood Preserving Co. of America v............. 947 Los Angeles County; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v....................... 915 Los Angeles County; Walter Fleisher Co. v........................ 917 Louisiana; Abercrombie v......................................... 935 Louisiana; Cole v................................................ 918 Louisiana; Grassi v.............................................. 993 Louisiana; Jernigan v............................................ 958 Louisiana; United States v................................... 253,906 Lovret; Seyfarth v............................................... 919 Lubbers; Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v............... 965 Lucas; Bush v.................................................... 914 Luck v. Texas................................................... 944 Luetkemeyer v. Illinois.......................................... 938 Lumsden v. Missouri.............................................. 984 Lutheran Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. United States................... 936 Lutheran Social Services of Central Ohio; Hueter v............... 929 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXIII Page Ma v. Hazelwood.............................................. 942 Macchiarola; Brissette v..................................... 986 Maine State Employees Appeals Bd.; Bowman v.................. 901 Mallett v. United States..................................... 912 Malloy v. United States...................................... 945 Mandel v. New York........................................... 949 Mann, In re.................................................. 915 Marathon Oil Co. v. United States............................ 964 Marcello v. United States................................... 914 Marino v. United States...................................... 953 Markt v. United States....................................... 985 Marshall; Hunt v............................................. 920 Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc..................................... 238 Marshall; Nolichuckey Sand Co. v............................. 908 Marten v. Thies............................................. 1320 Martin v. Blackburn.......................................... 911 Martinez & Co.; Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v....... 982 Maryland; Chambers v....................................... 921 Maryland; Douglas v.......................................... 911 Maryland; Feaster v.......................................... 947 Maryland; Griffin v........................................ 937 Maryland; Johnson v......................................... 911 Maryland; Meyer v......................................... 938 Maryland; Nolan v......................................... 966 Maryland; Speed v......................................... 921 Maryland v. Whitfield......................................... 993 Maryland; Wilson v........................................... 921 Maschhoff v. Automobile Workers............................... 993 Massachusetts; Giordano v.................................... 968 Massachusetts; Storey v....................................... 955 Mata; Sumner v.............................................. 1302 Matthews v. United States..................................... 981 Mayor of Fairfield; Nevett v.................................. 951 Mayor of New York City; Dominguez v........................... 917 McCarthy; Turnage v........................................... 942 McCoy v. United States........................................ 985 McDaniel v. Gunn.............................................. 944 McDonnell Douglas Corp.; Goodman v........................... 913 McGuire v. Leigh.............................................. 962 McGuire v. United States..................................... 910 McKeesport Area School Dist. v. Pennsylvania Dept, of Ed.... 970 McKethan v. United States..................................... 941 McLucas; Sima Products Corp, v............................... 908 McMillon v. Padgett........................................... 954 XXIV TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page McRae; Harris v.................................................. 907 Mears v. United States........................................... 945 Medellin v. United States........................................ 966 Medina-Herrera v. United States.................................. 964 Melechinsky v. United States..................................... 932 Melton v. United States.......................................... 969 Memphis v. Greene................................................ 934 Mendenhall; United States v.................................... 544 Mendoza-Alvarez v. United States................................. 952 Messer; American Gems, Inc. v.................................... 956 Meyer v. Maryland............................................... 938 Miami; Jaffer v.................................................. 931 Michigan; Thomas v............................................... 911 Mikos; Ringling Bros .-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v.. 947 Miller; Aldens, Inc. v......................................... 919 Miller v. Castlewood International Corp.......................... 949 Miller; First Investment Annuity Co. of America v................ 981 Miller; Gracey v................................................. 969 Miller; Investment Annuity, Inc. v............................... 981 Miller; Mollura v................................................ 918 Miller v. United States.......................................... 912 Milliken; Board of Ed. of Detroit v.............................. 963 Mills; Baldwin v................................................. 983 Minnesota; Moore v............................................... 952 Minson v. Chrysler Corp.......................................... 928 Mississippi; Gray v.............................................. 988 Mississippi; Harrigill v......................................... 939 Missouri; Heitman v.............................................. 941 Missouri; Higgins v.............................................. 902 Missouri; Lumsden v.............................................. 984 Missouri v. Sours................................................ 962 Mitchell, In re.................................................. 906 Mitchell; Armstrong v............................................ 941 Mitchell; Brown v................................................ 916 Mitchell v. Estelle.............................................. 910 Mitchell; Townes v............................................... 921 Mitchell; Turner v............................................... 960 Mitchell; United States v........................................ 992 Mitchell; Vango v................................................ 983 Mobile v. Bolden............................................ • 55 Mobil Oil Corp.; Department of Energy v.......................... 937 Moffitt v. Loe................................................... 928 Mollura v. Miller................................................ 918 Monroe; Blackbum v.......................................... 957 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXV Page Montana; Coleman v............................................. 970 Moore v. Minnesota............................................. 952 Moore v. North Dakota.......................................... 943 Moore v. United States..................................... 954,987 Moore v. Zant.................................................. 947 Moorman v. Davis............................................... 954 Mora v. Florida................................................ 917 Morgan v. District of Columbia................................. 943 Morgan v. North Carolina....................................... 986 Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of N. Y. v. Rinier................... 983 Morris; Andrews v.............................................. 949 Mosser v. White-Weld & Co...................................... 966 Mountain Laurel Racing, Inc. v. Fitzgerald..................... 956 Moving Picture Machine Operators; Feltington v................. 943 Muina v. Department of Professional Licensing of Mont.......... 981 Munoz v. United States......................................... 952 Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation......... 359 Nanni; Irvin v................................................. 985 Narenji v. Civiletti........................................... 957 National Collegiate Athletic Assn.; Wiley v.................... 943 National Crushed Stone Assn.; Environmental Protection Agency v.. 916 National Labor Relations Bd.; J. P. Stevens & Co. v............ 916 National Security Agency/Central Security Service; Hayden v... 937 Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee................................... 458 Nebraska; Otey v............................................... 988 Nelson v. State Accident Ins. Fund............................. 980 Nevett v. Sides................................................ 951 Neville v. Cavanaugh........................................... 908 New Hampshire; Beede v......................................... 993 New Hampshire; Theodosopoulos v................................ 983 New Jersey; Cashin v........................................... 939 New Mexico; Texas v........................................... 540 New Orleans; Geeck v........................................... 961 Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.; Walker v............. 943 New York; Cruz v............................................. 901 New York; Davis v............................................ 986 New York; Gayle v........................................... 905 New York; Gonzalez v........................................ 902 New York; Gordon v........................................... 903 New York; Graham v.......................................... 932 New York; Mandel v.......................................... 949 New York; Quamina v......................................... 942 New York; Vidal v........................................... 903 New York; Waiters v....................................... 905 XXVI TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page New York; Waters v.............................................. 942 New York City v. DePietro....................................... 908 New York City v. United States.................................. 936 Nix; Armour v................................................... 930 Nixon v. Fitzgerald............................................. 949 Nixon; Starr v.................................................. 953 Noe v. Civiletti................................................ 960 Nolan; Ingram v................................................. 956 Nolan v. Maryland............................................. 966 Nolichuckey Sand Co. v. Marshall................................ 908 Norman v. Texas................................................. 909 North Carolina; Boykin v...................................... 911 North Carolina; Cherry v...................................... 941 North Carolina; Jolly v......................................... 929 North Carolina; Morgan v...................................... 986 North Carolina; Reynolds v..................................... 941 North Carolina; Stevens v.................................. 968,986 North Carolina; Williams v...................................... 931 North Carolina Wildlife Res. Comm’n v. Eastern Band of Cherokees. 960 North Dakota; Moore v........................................... 943 Nunn v. California............................................. 986 Nunn v. United States........................................... 987 O’Brien v. United States........................................ 967 O’Bryan v. Texas................................................ 988 Occupational Safety and Health Admin.; Chlorine Institute v.... 950 O’Cheskey; Stuckey’s Stores, Inc. v............................. 930 Ohio; Foraker v................................................ 938 Ohio; Laguta v................................................. 952 Ohio; Porter v................................................. 943 Ohio; Price v.................................................. 943 Ohio; Wernert v................................................ 942 Ohio County & Independent Agric. Societies v. Commissioner..... 965 Oklahoma; Hunt v................................................ 969 Olson, Inc. v. California....................................... 935 Olson, Inc. v. Superior Court of Cal............................ 935 Ongie; Jaffer v................................................. 943 Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Lionberger................. 951 Oregon; Anderson v.............................................. 920 Oregon v. Haynes................................................ 945 Oregon ex rel. Haas; Club Recreation & Pleasure v............... 982 Osmose Wood Preserving Co. of America v. Los Angeles............ 947 Otey v. Nebraska................................................ 988 Overseas Private Investment Corp.; Revere Copper & Brass Inc. v. 983 Owen v. Independence............................................ 993 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXVII Page Pacific Legal Foundation; Costle v............................... 947 Pacileo v. Walker............................................... 1307 Padgett; McMillon v.............................................. 954 Palumbo v. United States......................................... 922 Papendick; Robert Bosch GmbH v................................... 909 Paquette v. Henderson............................................ 941 Parker v. United States....................................... 908 Parkins v. Illinois.............................................. 901 Parrish v. United States....................................... 984 Parrott v. United States....................................... 967 Partin v. United States.......................................... 964 Passmore v. Estelle.............................................. 937 Passmore; Estelle v.............................................. 937 Patrick Petroleum Corp, of Mich. v. United States................ 936 Paul v. Hermansdorf er........................................... 950 Paul v. United States............................................ 941 Pavia; DiMauro v................................................. 939 Pavia & Harcourt; DiMauro v.................................. 939 Payton v. United States.......................................... 969 Pearson v. Texas................................................. 912 Pearson v. United States......................................... 966 Peden v. United States.......................................... 987 Peery v. Sielaff................................................ 940 Peifer v. United States......................................... 940 Pelion v. United States......................................... 983 Pennsylvania; Caterina v...........;............................. 993 Pennsylvania; Clark v............................................ 944 Pennsylvania v. Henderson........................................ 905 Pennsylvania; Klobuchir v........................................ 947 Pennsylvania; Plexico v.......................................... 945 Pennsylvania; Rice v............................................. 986 Pennsylvania v. Williams......................................... 912 Pennsylvania Dept, of Ed.; McKeesport School Dist. v............. 970 Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.; Gulf Oil Corp, v................. 966 Penrod v. United States.......................................... 917 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; Nachman Corp, v.......... 359 Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co.; LaSalle National Bank v............ 970 Perez v. Texas................................................... 937 Perry; Falkowski v............................................... 936 Perry; Fidelity Union Life Ins. Co. v............................ 987 Pfister v. Delta Air Lines....................................... 963 Phillips v. Texas................................................ 961 Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Ashland Oil, Inc....................... 936 Phillips Petroleum Co.; Ashland Oil, Inc. v...................... 936 XXVIII TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Picking v. Hughes............................................... 944 Pike; Prenzler v............................................ 944,948 Pile; Department of Transportation of Okla, v................... 980 Pilgrim I Corp.; DoCarmo v...................................... 956 Plasser American Corp.; Canron, Inc. v.......................... 965 Plexico v. Pennsylvania......................................... 945 Plumlee v. Fields............................................. 934 Podrazik vj Blum................................................ 922 Police Comm’r of New York City v. Leigh......................... 962 Police Officers v. Central Broadcasting Corp.................... 935 Porter; Jones v................................................. 981 Porter v. Ohio.................................................. 943 Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, Workers’ Comp. Programs. 963 PPG Industries, Inc.; Harrison v................................ 578 Prado v. United States.......................................... 940 Pravda, In re................................................... 906 Prenzler v. Pike............................................ 944,948 Preston v. United States........................................ 940 Price v. Ohio................................................... 943 Proctor v. Georgia.............................................. 920 Prosak v. Boeing Co............................................. 948 Provenzano v. United States..................................... 953 Public Adm’r of N. Y. County v. American Trading & Prod. Corp. 964 Pynes v. United States.......................................... 903 Quamina v. New York............................................. 942 Quatermain v. United States..................................... 954 Quinones v. United States................................... 937,985 Ramsey v. United States....................................... 919 Randall v. Committee on Professional Ethics of Iowa Bar Assn... 946 Ray v. Sowders.................................................. 969 Raysor v. Stem.................................................. 942 Redman; Jacobs v............................................... 944 Reed v. United States........................................... 970 Reed Tool Co.; Reich v.......................................... 946 Regional Administrator, EPA v. PPG Industries, Inc.............. 578 Reich v. Reed Tool Co........................................... 946 Revere Copper & Brass Inc. v. Overseas Private Investment Corp.. 983 Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Security Div.; Thomas v......... 907 Reynolds v. North Carolina...................................... 941 Reynolds Metals Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America.................. 989 Rhode Island v. Innis......................................... 291 Rhodes; Sharp v................................................. 984 Rice v. Pennsylvania............................................ 986 Rickman; Hyman v............................................... 989 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXIX Page Riley v. United States......................................... 941 Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Mikos.. 947 Rinier; Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of N. Y. v................... 983 Rinier; Rodman v............................................... 983 Risjord; Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v......................... 934 Rivera v. United States........................................ 957 Robbins Co. v. Ross............................................ 946 Robert Bosch GmbH v. Papendick................................. 909 Robertson v. Texas............................................. 913 Rodes v. Brown................................................. 922 Rodgers v. Kentucky............................................ 953 Rodman v. Rinier............................................... 983 Rodrigues v. Sparks............................................ 931 Rodriguez v. United States..................................... 967 Rodriquez-Martinez v. United States............................ 910 Roldan v. Government of Virgin Islands......................... 920 Roman v. Le Fevre.............................................. 987 Romano v. United States........................................ 939 Rome v. United States.......................................... 156 Roper; Deposit Guaranty National Bank of Jackson v............. 947 Rosario; Harris v.............................................. 651 Rosario v. Ladies’ Garment Cutters............................. 919 Ross; A. H. Robbins Co. v...................................... 946 Ross v. Jones.................................................. 942 Ross v. United States.......................................... 965 Rossy, Inc.; Hernandez v....................................... 930 Roysdon v. United States....................................... 910 Rubies v. United States........................................ 940 Rubin v. U. N. Industries, Inc............................... 918 Rudasill; Kentucky State Bd. for Elementary & Secondary Ed. v.. 938 Ruman v. Department of Revenue of Pa........................... 964 Russell; Drebin v.............................................. 952 Russo v. Holley................................................ 913 Rutledge v. Florida............................................ 913 Sabater v. Kansas.............................................. 918 St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. East West Towing, Inc............. 918 Saitta v. United States........................................ 910 Sala v. Suffolk County......................................... 903 Salaam v. United States........................................ 940 Salla; Abrams v................................................ 909 Sanders v. United States....................................... 969 San Francisco; Turlock Irrigation Dist. v...................... 964 San Francisco; United Air Lines v.............................. 964 San Francisco; William C. Haas & Co. v......................... 929 XXX TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Santos v. United States........................................... 940 Sappington v. Beckert............................................. 931 Saunders-El v. United States...................................... 945 Scafidi v. United States.......................................... 984 Scheer v. United States........................................... 932 Schiff; Brown v................................................... 941 Schilpp, In re.................................................... 933 Sehmanski v. United States........................................ 922 Schmidt v. United States.......................................... 965 Schultz v. Israel................................................. 968 Scinda Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos..................... 934 Scott; Anniston v................................................. 917 Scott v. Lane..................................................... 986 Scott v. Washington............................................... 920 Searles v. United States.......................................... 910 Sears; Doe v...................................................... 979 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Los Angeles County........................ 915 Secretary, Dept, of Human Services of N. M. v. Nolan.............. 956 Secretary of Defense; Field v..................................... 939 Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Rosario................. 651 Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Wilson.................. 964 Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. McRae.............. 907 Secretary of Interior; Eiseman v............................... 982 Secretary of Interior v. Glover Construction Co................... 608 Secretary of Interior v. Shell Oil Co............................. 657 Secretary of Interior v. Utah..................................... 500 Secretary of Interior; Wilderness Public Rights Fund v............ 982 Secretary of Labor v. Jerrico, Inc................................ 238 Secretary of Labor; Nolichuckey Sand Co. v........................ 908 Secretary of Transportation; Chicago Transit Authority v........ 946 Secretary of Treasury v. Castlewood International Corp............ 949 Secretary of Treasury; First Investment Annuity Co. v............. 981 Secretary of Treasury; Investment Annuity, Inc. v................. 981 Securities and Exchange Comm’n; Aaron v........................... 680 Securities and Exchange Comm’n; Steadman v.................... 917,981 Security Barge Lines, Inc.; Ivy v............................... 956 Seibert v. Baptist................................................ 918 Seyfarth v. Lovret................................................ 919 Seymour v. Coughlin Co............................................ 957 Sharp v. Rhodes.................................................. 984 Shaw v. Cole...................................................... 968 Shell Oil Co.; Andrus v........................................... 657 Shell Oil Co. v. United States.................................... 964 Shelton; Sherard v................................................ 983 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXXI Page Sherard v. Shelton.............................................. 983 Shird v. Warden............................................... 986 Short v. United States.......................................... 956 Short v. Washington............................................. 985 Shuffman v. Hartford Textile Corp............................... 909 Sides; Nevett v................................................. 951 Sielaff; Peery v................................................ 940 Sima Products Corp. v. McLucas.................................. 908 Simon v. Texas.................................................. 929 Simon v. U. S. Court of Appeals................................. 950 Sindona v. Tisch................................................ 909 Slone v. Blocksom & Co.......................................... 909 Smith v. Bordenkircher........................................ 962 Smith v. Collins................................................ 911 Smith v. Equity National Industries, Inc........................ 965 Smith; Hebert v................................................. 955 Smith; Henryhand v.............................................. 942 Smith v. Tennessee.............................................. 920 Sno-White Drive In v. Lawrence T. Lasagna, Inc.................. 919 Snyder v. Blankenship........................................... 942 Sours; Missouri v............................................... 962 Southard; Hohensee v............................................ 911 South Carolina; Ferrell v....................................... 965 South Central Bell Telephone Co.; Lockett v.................... 947 Southern; Ginter v.............................................. 967 Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Hector Martinez & Co.... 982 Southwest Tex. Methodist Hospital v. EEOC....................... 947 Sowders; Ray v.................................................. 969 Sparks; Rodrigues v............................................. 931 Sparks v. United States......................................... 908 Sparrow v. United States........................................ 910 Spectrum Financial Cos.; Harris, Kerr, Forster & Co. v.......... 936 Speed v. Maryland............................................... 921 Spencer v. Greyhound Lines, Inc................................. 909 Spicer v. Illinois.............................................. 940 Spiegel v. United States........................................ 935 Spradlin v. United States....................................... 946 Spraggins v. Georgia............................................ 961 Starley v. Birmingham........................................... 956 Starr v. Nixon.................................................. 953 State. See name of State. State Accident Ins. Fund; Nelson v.............................. 980 State Bd. of Equalization of Cal.; Western & So. Life Ins. Co. v... 933 State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio Pension Fund v. Lilly.. 939 xxxn TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Steadman v. Securities and Exchange Comm’n................ 917,981 Steele v. Barrett................................................ 970 Steelworkers v. Dunbar........................................... 983 Stem; Raysor v................................................... 942 Stevens v. North Carolina..................................... 968,986 Stevens & Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd..................... 916 Storey v. Massachusetts.......................................... 955 Street v. Warden................................................. 968 Stuckey’s Stores, Inc. v. O’Cheskey.............................. 930 Suffolk County; Sala v........................................ 903 Sullivan; Cuyler v............................................... 335 Sullivan v. Ford................................................. 969 Summers; Green v................................................. 941 Sumner v. Mata.................................................. 1302 Superintendent of penal or correctional institution. See name or title of superintendent. Superior Court of Cal.; Forest E. Olson, Inc. v.................. 935 Superior Court of Cal.; Helge v.................................. 987 Superior Court of Cal.; Worldwide Church of God, Inc. v.......914,987 Supreme Court of Va. v. Consumers Union of U. S., Inc.......... 719 Susan B.; Clifford v............................................. 909 Swank; United States v........................................... 934 Switlik v. Hardwicke Corp........................................ 929 Syrovatka v. Ehrlich............................................. 935 Tallmadge; Chapman v............................................. 946 Tantzen, Inc.; Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs v.... 905 Target Sales, Inc.; Catalano, Inc. v............................. 643 Tarkowski v. Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee & Hastings...... 912 Tax Comm’r of Ohio; Globe Paper Co. v............................ 938 Taylor v. Economopoulos.......................................... 921 Taylor v. Hayes.................................................. 968 Taylor v. United States.......................................... 985 Taylor v. Wisconsin Tax Appeals Comm’n........................... 979 Teicher v. United States......................................... 910 Tench v. United States........................................... 940 Tennessee; Bramblett v........................................... 965 Tennessee; Jackson v............................................. 921 Tennessee; Smith v............................................... 920 Texas v. Battarbee............................................... 982 Texas; Betancourt v............................................ 942 Texas; Christian v............................................... 984 Texas; Duncan v.................................................. 911 Texas; Guzman v.................................................. 944 Texas; Jones v..................................*................ 921 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxxni Page Texas; Luck v................................................... 944 Texas v. New Mexico............................................. 540 Texas; Norman v................................................. 909 Texas; O’Bryan v................................................ 988 Texas; Pearson v................................................ 912 Texas; Perez v.................................................. 937 Texas; Phillips v............................................... 961 Texas; Robertson v.............................................. 914 Texas; Simon v.................................................. 929 Texas; Vincent v.............................................. 934 Texas; Walthal v.............................................. 932 Theodosopoulos v. New Hampshire............................... 983 Thevis v. United States......................................... 908 Thies; Marten v................................................ 1320 Thomas v. Michigan............................................ 911 Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Security Div............ 907 Thomas v. United States..................................... 954,985 Thompson v. United States....................................... 911 Thompson & Son Funeral Home; Gist v............................. 912 Thome v. Virginia............................................... 946 Tiburon; Agins v................................................ 907 Tillman v. Fauver............................................... 944 Tisch; Sindona v................................................ 909 Toledo; Gomez v............................................. 635,933 Toledo; Westover v.............................................. 953 Tomanio; Board of Regents of Univ, of N. Y. v................... 478 Torch v. United States.......................................... 957 Townes v. Mitchell.............................................. 921 Trepel Petroleum Corp. v. CleveRock Energy Corp................. 909 Tucker v. Anderson.............................................. 953 Turlock Irrigation Dist. v. San Francisco....................... 964 Turnage v. McCarthy............................................. 942 Turner v. Graham................................................ 934 Turner v. Mitchell.............................................. 960 Undercofler; Attwell v.......................................... 955 Underwood v. United States...................................... 920 U. N. Industries, Inc.; Rubin v................................. 918 Union. For labor union, see name of trade. Union Bank; Gant v.............................................. 929 United. For labor union, see name of trade. United Air Lines v. San Francisco............................... 964 United Parcel Service, Inc.; U. S. Postal Service v............. 957 United States; Acavino v........................................ 951 United States; Adams v.......................................... 949 XXXIV TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page United States; Almendarez v...................................... 954 United States; Amen v................................................ 919 United States; Appalachian Power Co. v............................... 935 United States; Ashcroft v............................................ 966 United States; Babic v............................................. 982 United States; Balistrieri v....................................... 917 United States; Barnes v........................................... 907 United States; Basey v............................................. 919 United States; Beattie v........................................... 982 United States; Beck v.............................................. 940 United States; Bergen v............................................ 953 United States; Breger v.......................................... 919 United States; Brien v............................................. 919 United States; Brisco v............................................ 922 United States; Broadway v.......................................... 955 United States; Brown v................................ 945,962,966,967 United States; Bryant v........................................ 919,920 United States; Bucchino v......................................... 952 United States; Buck v.............................................. 968 United States; Buckle v............................................ 967 United States; Bullock v........................................... 986 United States; Burrus v............................................ 945 United States; Busic v........................................... 398 United States; Caldwell v.......................................... 953 United States; Callabrass v........................................ 940 United States; Cameron v........................................... 945 United States; Campbell v.......................................... 948 United States; Canter v............................................ 950 United States; Chaney v............................................ 964 United States; Chapman v........................................... 967 United States; Chiodo v............................................ 954 United States; Chute v............................................. 936 United States; Clemente v.......................................... 908 United States; Coats v............................................. 909 United States; Coleman v..................................... 940,955 United States; Coleman-Bey v....................................... 940 United States; Collom v............................................ 923 United States; Colvin v.......................................... 945 United States; Couch v............................................. 912 United States; DeCambra v.......................................... 955 United States; DeJean v............................................ 945 United States; Diggs v............................................. 982 United States; Dobson v............................................ 955 United States; Doyle v............................................. 982 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXXV Page United States; Dukajgini v...................................... 987 United States v. Duncan......................................... 903 United States; Dunn v........................................... 955 United States; Dupris v..........'.............................. 980 United States; Erickson v....................................... 984 United States v. Euge........................................... 913 United States; Exxon v.......................................... 964 United States; Fazio v.......................................... 981 United States; Fera v......................................... 969 United States; Flanagan v....................................... 987 United States; Fox v...............................4......¿..'2, 935 United States; Francisco v..................................... 922 United States; Froembgen v...................................... 947 United States; Garcia v..................................... 908,984 United States; Gamer v.......................................... 954 United States; Gaultney v....................................... 907 United States; Gause v.......................................... 987 United States; Godwin v......................................... 929 United States; Goodman v..........;............................. 922 United States ; Goodwin v....................................... 986 United States; Gosnell v........................................ 945 United States; Gray v........................................911,960 United States; Grzywacz v....................................... 935 United States; Guanajuato v..................................... 944 United States; Hach v........................................... 912 United States; Hanigan v........................................ 953 United States; Harbolt v.......................985 United States v. Havens........................................ 620 United States; Hawkins v........................................ 955 United States; Hernandez v...................................... 910 United States; Hess v........................................... 937 United States; Hines v....................................... 940 United States; Hogberg v........................................ 953 United States; Holloway v...................................... 935 United States; Hood v.......................................... 987 United States; Jahoda v......................................... 917 United States; Johnson v........................................ 954 United States; Jones v................................. 911,945,988 United States; Justice v....................................... 920 United States; Kail v.......................................... 912 United States; Kampiles v....................................... 954 United States; Kearney v........................................ 987 United States; King v....................................... 939,969 United States; Klauber v........................................ 908 XXXVI TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page United States; Korman v.............................................. 952 United States; Kulik v............................................... 982 United States; Labinia v............................................. 969 United States; Labus v............................................... 919 United States; Larkin v.............................................. 939 United States; LaRocca v............................................. 398 United States; Larson v.............................................. 936 United States; Leib v................................................ 955 United States; Lewis v............................................... 941 United States; Liberti v............................................. 952 United States; Licavoli v............................................ 935 United States v. Louisiana....................................... 253,906 United States; Lutheran Mutual Life Ins. Co. v....................... 936 United States; Mallett v............................................. 912 United States; Malloy v.............................................. 945 United States; Marathon Oil Co. v.................................... 964 United States; Marcello v............................................ 914 United States; Marino v.............................................. 953 United States; Markt v............................................... 985 United States; Matthews v............................................ 981 United States; McCoy v............................................... 985 United States; McGuire v............................................. 910 United States; McKethan v............................................ 941 United States; Mears v............................................... 945 United States; Medellin v............................................ 966 United States; Medina-Herrera v...................................... 964 United States; Melechinsky v......................................... 932 United States; Melton v.............................................. 969 United States v. Mendenhall.......................................... 544 United States; Mendoza-Alvarez v..................................... 952 United States; Miller v.............................................. 912 United States v. Mitchell............................................ 992 United States; Moore v........................................... 954,987 United States; Munoz v............................................... 952 United States; New York City v....................................... 936 United States; Nunn v................................................ 987 United States; O’Brien v............................................. 967 United States; Palumbo v...................•......................... 922 United States; Parker v.............................................. 908 United States; Parrish v............................................. 984 United States; Parrott v............................................. 967 United States; Partin v.............................................. 964 United States; Patrick Petroleum Corp, of Mich, v.................... 936 United States; Paul v................................................ 941 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXXVII Page United States; Payton v................................................ 969 United States; Pearson v............................................... 966 United States; Peden v................................................. 987 United States; Peifer v................................................ 940 United States; Pelion v................................................ 983 United States; Penrod v................................................ 917 United States; Prado v................................................. 940 United States; Preston v............................................... 940 United States; Provenzano v........................................ 953 United States; Pynes v................................................. 903 United States; Quatermain v............................................ 954 United States; Quinones v.......................................... 937,985 United States; Ramsey v................................................ 919 United States; Reed v.................................................. 970 United States; Riley v................................................. 941 United States; Rivera v................................................ 957 United States; Rodriguez v............................................. 967 United States; Rodriquez-Martinez v.................................... 910 United States; Romano v................................................ 939 United States; Rome v.................................................. 156 United States; Ross v.................................................. 965 United States; Roysdon v............................................... 910 United States; Rubies v................................................ 940 United States; Saitta v................................................ 910 United States; Salaam v................................................ 940 United States; Sanders v............................................... 969 United States; Santos v................................................ 940 United States; Saunders-El v........................................... 945 United States; Scafidi v............................................... 984 United States; Scheer v................................................ 932 United States; Schmanski v......................................... 922 United States; Schmidt v............................................... 965 United States; Searles v............................................... 910 United States; Shell Oil Co. v......................................... 964 United States; Short v................................................. 956 United States; Sparks v................................................ 908 United States; Sparrow v............................................... 910 United States; Spiegel v............................................... 935 United States; Spradlin v.............................................. 946 United States v. Swank................................................. 934 United States; Taylor v................................................ 985 United States; Teicher v............................................... 910 United States; Tench v................................................. 940 United States; Thevis v................................................ 908 xxxvin TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page United States; Thomas v........................................ 954,985 United States; Thompson v.......................................... 911 United States; Torch v............................................. 957 United States; Underwood v......................................... 920 United States; Varkonyi v.......................................... 945 United States; Venable v....................................... 922,909 United States; Victorson v......................................... 936 United States; Wade v.............................................. 985 United States; Walker v.......................................... 944 United States; Waller v.......................................... 901 United States; Walton v.......................................... 914 United States; Warren v...................................... 922,956 United States; Weathers v.......................................... 956 United States; West v.......................................... 952,966 United States; White v............................................. 992 United States; Williamson v........................................ 922 United States; Wischnewski v....................................... 941 United States; Woods v............................................. 920 United States; Yankton Sioux Tribe v............................... 953 United States; Zurosky v........................................... 967 U. S. Court of Appeals; Canter v................................ 950 U. S. Court of Appeals; Delespine v................................ 950 U. S. Court of Appeals; Simon v................................ 950 U. S. District Judge; Conrad v................................... 913 U. S. District Judge; Erickson v................................. 984 U. S. District Judge; Jones v...................................... 981 U. S. District Judge; Paul v..................................... 950 U. S. District Judge; Unknown Named Children v................... 947 U. S. Marshal v. Loe............................................... 928 U. S. Postal Service v. United Parcel Service, Inc................. 957 United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz..................... 916 Universal Amusement Co.; Vance v................................... 947 University of Houston; Barnstone v................................ 1318 Unknown Named Children Unborn and Bom Alive v. Greene............. 947 Utah; Andrus v..................................................... 500 Uzzell v. Friday................................................... 951 Valley Bank of Nev.; Hayes v....................................... 902 Valley Center Municipal Water Dist.; Wright v...................... 922 Vance v. Universal Amusement Co.............................. 947 Vango v. Mitchell.................................................. 983 Van Sickle; Aranda v............................................... 951 Varkonyi v. United States.......................................... 945 Vasil v. Florida................................................... 967 Venable v. United States....................................... 922,969 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXXIX Page Victorson v. United States..................................... 936 Vidal v. New York.............................................. 903 Vincent v. Texas............................................... 934 Virginia; Thome v.............................................. 946 Virginia; Williams v........................................... 913 Virginia Chiropractors Assn.; Bartholomew v.................... 938 Wade v. United States.......................................... 985 Waiters v. New York............................................ 905 Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.................................... 740 Walker v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.............. 943 Walker; Pacileo v............................................. 1307 Walker v. United States............i........................... 944 Wallace Oil Co.; Kickasola v................................... 921 Waller v. United States........................................ 901 Walls v. Illinois............................................ 919 Walter Fleisher Co. v. Los Angeles County...................... 917 Walter Tantzen, Inc.; Director of Workers’ Comp. Programs v... 905 Walthal v. Texas............................................... 932 Walton v. United States........................................ 914 Ward v. Commissioner......................................... 918 Ward; Honeycutt v.............................................. 985 Warden. See also name of warden. Warden; Cleveland v............................................ 934 Warden; Shird v................................................ 986 Warden; Street v............................................... 968 Warren v. United States.................................... 922,956 Washington; Johnson v.......................................... 948 Washington; Scott v............................................ 920 Washington; Short v.............................i.............. 985 Waters, In re.................................................. 906 Waters v. New York............................................. 942 Watson; Winpisinger v.......................................... 929 Weathers v. United States...................................... 956 Weaver v. Graham............................................... 916 Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co............................ 142 Wenzler; Dawn v................................................ 968 Wemert v. Ohio................................................. 942 West v. United States....................................... 952,966 Western & So. Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization of Cal.... 933 Westover v. Toledo............................................. 953 Wherry; Jackson v.............................................. 965 White v. United States..................•...................... 992 White v. Wyrick................................................ 920 White-Weld & Co.; Mosser v966 XL TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Whitfield; Maryland v........................................... 998 Wilderness Public Rights Fund v. Andrus......................... 982 Wiley v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn...................... 943 William C. Haas & Co. v. San Francisco....,..................... 929 Williams v. Brown............................................... 236 Williams v. Dalsheim.......................................... 943 Williams v. Iowa................................................ 921 Williams v. North Carolina...................................... 931 Williams; Pennsylvania v........................................ 912 Williams v. Virginia............................................ 913 Williamson v. Hinton............................................ 954 Williamson v. United States..................................... 922 Wilson; Harris v................................................ 964 Wilson v. Maryland............................................. 921 Winpisinger v. Watson........................................... 929 Wireman v. Disciplinary Comm’n.................................. 908 Wischnewski v. United States.................................... 941 Wisconsin; Jackson v............................................ 902 Wisconsin Tax Appeals Comm’n; Taylor v.......................... 979 Wm. T. Burnett & Co. v. General Tire & Rubber Co................ 951 Wolk, In re..................................................... 915 Wood v. Georgia................................................. 951 Woods v. United States.......................................... 920 Workers’ Compensation Appeals Bd.; Dioquino v................... 944 Worldwide Church of God, Inc. v. California................. 914,987 Worldwide Church of God, Inc. v. Superior Court of Cal........ 914,987 W. R. Grace & Co. v. E-T Industries, Inc........................ 953 Wright v. Valley Center Municipal Water Dist.................... 922 Wyoming; Chavez v............................................... 984 Wyrick; Brooks v................................................ 969 Wyrick; White v................................................. 920 Yakima County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. v. Board of Comm’rs...... 979 Yankton Sioux Tribe v. United States............................ 953 Young v. Baltimore County Bd. of Ed............................. 955 Young v. Delaware............................................... 940 Young v. Distinctive Devices, Inc............................... 937 Zangrillo v. Ambach............................................ 982 Zant; Moore v................................................... 947 Zurosky v. United States........................................ 967 TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Abate v. Mundt, 403 U. S. 182 107, 109,134 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136 603-605 Acuff v. Schmit, 248 Iowa 272 284 Adams v. Richardson, 156 U. S. App. D. C. 267 249 Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143 959 Adams Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U. S. 275 594 Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144 551 Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U. S. 128 689,695,705 Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20 623-625,629,630 Akins v. Texas, 325 U. S. 398 68,77 Alabama v. Texas, 347 U. S. 272 256 Alabama Power Co. v. Davis, 431 U. S. 581 363,390 Alamo Land & Cattle Co. v. Arizona, 424 U. S. 295 524 Alaska v. United States, C. A. No. 101-66 (DC Aug. 17, 1966); C. A. No. 2122-71 (DC Mar. 10, 1972); C. A. No. 78-0484 (DC May 10, 1979) 204 Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405 332,334 Albrecht v. United States, 329 U. S. 599 265 Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 326, 332,333,490 Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U. S. 625 77 Alexis I. du Pont School Dist. v. Evans, 439 U. S. 1375 926 Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544 60 161, 169, 201, 211, 219 Page Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 521 F. 2d 360 6,7 Amos v. United States, 255 U. S. 313 577 Anderson v. Home Style Stores, Inc., 58 F. R. D. 125 330 Anderson v. Papillion, 445 F. 2d 841 744 Andrus v. Allard, 444 U. S. 51 718 Apache, Navaho, and Coconino Counties v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 903 198 Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 223,224,226-231,233,343 Arizona v. California, 283 U. S. 423 131 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252 63,67,68,70, 73, 100, 101, 103, 104, 121, 124, 125, 136-138 Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56 708 Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134 115 Arnold v. State, 236 Ga. 534 424, * 454 Arp v. Worker’s Compensation Appeals Bd., 19 Cal. 3d 395 147, * , 150 Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 437 958 Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. . 288 ’ 32, 60 Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U. S. 696 25 Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. S. 474 107,116 Baer v. United Services Automobile Assn., 503 F. 2d 393 472 Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186 83, 90 93 182 Baker v. State, 243 Ga. 710 43L 440 Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U. S. 222 932 XLI xLn TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Baldwin v. New York, 399 U. S. 66 229 Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298 653 Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch 61 461,463 Banks v. State, 237 Ga. 325 430, 440,455 Barcellona v. Tiffany English Pub., Inc., 597 F. 2d 464 641 Barrows v. Hickel, 447 F. 2d 80 659 Baskin v. Brown, 174 F. 2d 391 131 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350 727,728 Beame v. Friends of the Earth, 434 U. S. 1310 1315 Beecher v. Weatherby, 95 U. S. 517 523 Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130 63,107,112, 125, 126, 130, 135, 140, 172, 178, 183, 185, 211 Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678 34,42 Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp. 813 34 Bell v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 637 438 Belle View Apartments v. Realty ReFund Trust, 602 F. 2d 668 466 Berger v. United States, 295 U. S. 78 249 Berry v. Doles, 438 U. S. 190 206 Best v. Humboldt Placer Min- ing Co., 371 U. S. 334 660 Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809 728 Birt v. State, 236 Ga. 815 432,456 Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341 499 Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 17-36,39-49,51-53 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 456 F. 2d 1339 638 Blacks for United Lasting Leadership, Inc. v. Shreveport, 571 F. 2d 248 99,100 Blake v. State, 239 Ga. 292 430-432, 435,441,455 Bleamaster v. Morton, 448 F. 2d 1289 537 Page Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U. S. 313 342, 343,552 Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723 689, 713 Bly v. McL6od, 605 F. 2d 134 758, 759 Board of Governors v. First Lincolnwood Corp., 439 U. S. 234 718 Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 640 Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U. S. 478 962 Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 113 Bomar v. Keyes, 162 F. 2d 136 751 Bonnafee v. Williams, 3 How. 574 463 Bonner v. Coughlin, 517 F. 2d 1311 493 Book v. Justice Mining Co., 58 F. 106 664,678 Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U. S. 357 250 Bouchard v. First People’s Trust, 253 Mass. 351 471 Boyle v. Landry, 401 U. S. 77 736 Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 734 Bradley v. Richmond School Bd., 416 U. S. 696 757 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387 296,300,304,310,314,342 Briggs v. Goodwin, 186 U. S. App. D. C. 179 735 Bronken v. Morton, 473 F. 2d 790 537 Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U. S. 605 344 Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443 342 Brown v. Board of Ed., 347 U. S. 483 923 Brown v. GSA, 425 U. S. 820 31 Brown v. Georgia-Tennessee Coaches, Inc., 88 Ga. Add. 519 284 Brown v. Moore, 575 F. 2d 298 136 Brown v. Moore, 428 F. Supp. _ 1123 106,136,137 Brown v. State, 235 Ga. 644 454 TABLE OF CASES CITED XLIII Page Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47 556, 561, 563, 570, 571-573 Brown v. United States, 356 U. S. 148 627 Browne v. Strode, 5 Cranch 303 465 Bryan v. Jones, 530 F. 2d 1210 638 Bryson v. United States, 396 U. S. 64 626,627 Bullard v. Cisco, 290 U. S. 179 463-465,476 Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U. S. 543 552,557,577 Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109 232-234 Burks v. Lasker, 441 U. S. 471 23 Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73 66,68,95,108,109,119,186 Button v. Day, 204 Va. 547 721 Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478 19,21,22, 30, 52, 640, 764, 765 B. & W. Taxicab Co. v. B. & Y. Taxicab Co., 276 U.S. 518 32 Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U. S. 663 653 Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199 148,149,152-155 Califano v. Torres, 435 U. S. 1 652-656 Califano v. Webster, 430 U. S. 313 150 Califano v. Westcott, 443 U. S. 76 150,153 California v. Braeseke, 444 U. S. 1309 305 California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33 932 California v. Minjares, 443 U. S. 916 46 California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U. S. 97 949 Cameron v. United States, 252 U. S. 450 660,677 Campbell v. State, 240 Ga. 252 441 Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677 29 Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437 973 Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247 21, 22,47,49,242 Page Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678 114 Carey v. U. S. Industries, Inc., 414 F. Supp. 794 466 Carl v. Udall, 114 U. S. App. D. C. 33 537 Carlsberg Resources Corp. v. Cambria Savings & Loan Assn., 554 F. 2d 1254 475 Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14 485, 489,914 Cascaden v. Bartolis, 146 F. 739 664,678 Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426 39,40 Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U. S. 482 72,77 C & C Tile Co. v. Independent School Dist. No. 7 of Tulsa Cty., 503 P. 2d 554 751 Cement Mfrs. Protective Assn. v. United States, 268 U. S. 588 648 Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 677 461 Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U. S. 600 35 Chapman v. Kleindienst, 507 F. 2d 1246 991 Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1 81, 107,112 Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch 306 462,466 Chappell v. Rouch, 448 F. 2d 446 744 Chase Manhattan Mortgage & Realty Trust v. Pendley, 405 F. Supp. 593 467 Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians v. FPC, 420 U. S. 395 596 Chiarella v. United States, 445 U. S. 222 709,711 Chinese for Affirmative Action v. Leguennec, 580 F. 2d 1006 758 Chmieleski v. City Products Corp., 71 F. R. D. 118 330 Choctaw and McCurtain Counties v. United States, C. A. No. 76-1250 (D. C. May 12, 1978) 198 Chrisman v. Miller, 197 U. S. 313 660,677 xmv TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412 758 Christofferson v. Halliburton Co., 534 F. 2d 1147 276,281 Chrysler Corp. v. EPA, 195 U. S. App. D. C. 90 594 Chubbs v. City of New York, 342 F. Supp. 1183 992 City. See name of city. Ciuzio v. United States, 416 U. S. 995 958 Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3 220 Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Reed, 445 U. S. 935 927 Clouston v. Remlinger Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc., 22 Ohio St. 2d 65 285 Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172 460,463 Coates v. SEC, 394 U. S. 976 715 Cohen v. Ayers, 596 F. 2d 733 641 Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 289 Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584 438,453 Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co., 351 U. S. 445 8,9 Cole v. Ralph, 252 U. S. 286 677 Collett, Ex parte, 337 U. S. 55 200 Collins v. State, 243 Ga. 291 431 Colon v. Fogg, 603 F. 2d 403 346 Colonial Realty Corp. v. Bache & Co., 358 F. 2d 178 475 Columbus Bd. of Ed. v. Pen- wick, 443 U. S. 449 140,193 Committee for Public Ed. v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756 973,974 Committee for Public Ed. v. Regan, 444 U. S. 646 977,979 Commonwealth. See also name of Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 445 Pa. 292 299 Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 446 Pa. 419 338 Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 472 Pa. 129 338,339 Connally v. Georgia, 429 U. S. 245 243,250 Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407 66, 81,116 Page Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. American Bar Assn., 427 F. Supp. 506 726 Continental Casualty Co. v. United States, 314 U. S. 533 617 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1 221 Cooper v. Roberts, 18 How. 173 506,523 County. See name of county. Cousins v. City Council of Chicago, 466 F. 2d 830 86, 87,89,92 Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 277,279,287 Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U. S. 559 202 Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190 150 Crowell v. Randell, 10 Pet. 368 973 Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335 962,963 Dallas County v. Reese, 421 U. S. 477 112,120 Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 417 76 Davidson v. Schlussel Reederei KG, 295 So. 2d 700 277 Davis v. Georgia, 429 U. S. 122 438, 453 Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721 551 Davis v. Murphy, 587 F. 2d 362 758 Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228 18, 19, 26, 29, 31, 35, 37, 42 52 Davis v. State’ 236 Ga. 840 441 Davis’s Administrator v. Wei-bold, 139 U. S. 507 678 Dawson v. Pastrick, 600 F. 2d 70 757 Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brink- man, 443 U. S. 528 140, 193,924-927 DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U. S. 425 619 Deems v. Western Maryland R. Co., 247 Md. 95 285 Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648 557,561-563,567 Dellums v. Powell, 184 U. S. App. D. C. 275 638 Dempsey v. United States, 423 U. S. 1079 958 TABLE OF CASES CITED XLV Page Départaient of Banking v. Pink, 317 U. S. 264 288 Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 364 Ma«« 1 OOK Dini v. Naiditch, 20 Ill. 2d 406 284 District of Columbia v. Train, 175 U. S. App. D. C. 115 596 Dix v. State, 238 Ga. 209 432,455 Dr. Kock Vegetable Tea Co. v. Davis, 48 Okla. 14 748 Dodge v. Tulleys, 144 U. S. 451 463 Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U. S. 82 732,733 Dorsey v. Fortson, 228 F. Supp. 259 118 Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. White, 439 U. S. 32 191 Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 113 Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244 653 Downs v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 909 438 Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 959 Dreyer v. Jalet, 349 F. Supp. 452 991 Duffy v. Lipsman-Fulkerson & Co., 200 F. Supp. 71 285 Dugan v. Ohio, 277 U. S. 61 251 Duignan v. United States, 274 U. S. 195 551 Dukes v. Warden, 406 U. S. 250; 161 Conn. 337 349 Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200 555,567,574-576 Duncan v. General Motors Corp., 499 F. 2d 835 285 Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 77,229 Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U. S. 560 249 Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 77,84,104,116-118,134 Duparquet Co. v. Evans, 297 U. S.216 705 Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Collins, 432 U. S. 46 374 Du Pont School Dist. v. Evans, 439 U. S. 1375 926 East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U. S. 636 71, 90,106 Page Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U. S. 491 731-733 Eberheart v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 917 438,453 E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Collins, 432 U. S. 46 374 Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 114 Ekalo v. Constructive Service Corp., 46 N. J. 82 285 Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U. S. 229 490, 491 Elmore County v. United States, C. A. No. 320-66 (DC Sept. 22, 1976) 198 El Paso County Bd. of Comm’rs v. United States, C. A. No. 77-0185 (DC Nov. 8, 1977) 199 Ely v. Klahr, 403 U. S. 108 186 England v. Louisiana State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411 497,498 Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Ruckleshaus, 142 U. S. App. D. C. 74 249 EEOC v. Detroit Edison Co., 515 F. 2d 301 328 EEOC v. D. H. Holmes Co., 556 F. 2d 787 320,327,334 EEOC v. General Electric Co., 532 F. 2d 1007 331 EEOC v. McLean Trucking Co., 525 F. 2d 1007 331 Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 37,39,472, 744-748, 750, 752, 753 Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185 685,686,689- 691, 694—696, 700, 703-705, 708, 713, 715, 718 Eslinger v. Thomas, 476 F. 2d 225 732 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97 17 Estes v. Metropolitan Branch, Dallas NAACP, 444 U. S. 437 927 Evans v. Buchanan, 393 F. Supp. 428 923 Evans v. Cornman, 398 U. S. 419 77,116 XLVI TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S. 572 640,653 Ex parte. See name of party. Fabula v. Buck, 598 F. 2d 869 1314 Fairley v. Patterson, 393 U. S. 544 211,219 Fare v. Michael C., 442 U. S. 707 905 FTC v. A. E. Staley Mfg. Co., 324 U. S. 746 641 FTC v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683 648 Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U. S. 570 344 Finch v. United States, 387 F. 2d 13 537 First National Bank of New Bedford v. Chartier, 305 Mass. 316 471 Fitzgerald v. Estelle, 505 F. 2d 1334 343 Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 179,180 Fleming v. State, 240 Ga. 142 453 Floyd v. State, 233 Ga. 280 441 Food Employees v. Logan Val- ley Plaza, 391 U. S. 308 32 Ford v. United States, 126 U. S. App. D. C. 346 346 Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 394 U. S. 495 648 Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U. S. 433 66,68,87,95,108,109, 117-119, 122, 127, 128 Fowler v. Alexander, 478 F. 2d 694 735 Fox v. Prudent Resources Trust, 382 F. Supp. 81 467 Foxworth v. Wainwright, 516 F. 2d 1072 347,348 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677 149,152 Frost v. Thompson, 219 Mass. 360 470,471 Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 427,428,438- 440, 442, 445, 452, 453 Gaddis v. State, 239 Ga. 238 440 Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U. S. 735 69,70,87,111,120 Gaffney v. Silk, 488 F. 2d 1248 638 Page Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349 433,438 Garfield v. Palmieri, 193 F. Supp. 582 35 Gaston County v. United States, 395 U. S. 285 199, 208 213 216 Gates v. Foley, 247 So. 2d 40 284 Geders v. United States, 425 U. S. 80 344 General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360 285 Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S. 526 171,172,183,201 Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 736 Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564 243,250 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 225,229,232,234,343 Giglio v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 927 277 Gilker v. Baker, 576 F. 2d 245 638 Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U. S. 148 279 Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U. S. 1012 440 Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60 348-351,355-357 Glendale v. Bradshaw, 108 Ariz. 582 284 Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 962 Godfrey v. State, 243 Ga. 302 455 Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 62,63,69,85,86,90,91, 102, 127, 130-133, 214 Gooch v. United States, 297 U. S. 124 588,601 Gooding v. United States, 416 U. S. 430 200 Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F. 2d 1147 992 Gordon v. United States, 2 Wall. 561 37 Government Employees v. Windsor, 353 U. S. 364 497,498 Graves v. Barnes, 405 U. S. 1201 1319 Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368 89, 116,128 Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U. S. 449 461,473,476 TABLE OF CASES CITED XLVII Page Green v. DeCamp, 612 F. 2d 368 732 Green v. Georgia, 442 U. S. 95 438,453 Green v. State, 242 Ga. 261 440 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 422,423,427-430,433-435, 437-442, 445-447, 456, 457, 913, 947, 970, 988 Gregg v. State, 233 Ga. 117 453 Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579 47,765 Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 113 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 114 Groninger v. Davison, 364 F. 2d 638 744 Grubbs v. Butz, 179 U. S. App. D. C. 18 758 Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99 745-747 Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347 62,130 Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S. 189 393 Gutelius v. Stanbon, 39 F. 2d 621 471,472 Hadley v. Junior College Dist., 397 U. S. 50 116 Hall v. State, 241 Ga. 252 454 Hampton v. Chicago, 339 F. Supp. 695 755 Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U. S. 88 115 Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U. S. 460 743,747-750,752,753 Hansen v. Ahlgrimm, 520 F. 2d 768 735 Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663 78,117 Harris v. Harvey, 605 F. 2d 330 735 Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 625,626,630-634 Harris v. State, 237 Ga. 718 429- 432, 435, 442, 448, 454, 455 Harrisburg, The, 119 U. S. 199 280 Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503 554 Page Hecht v. Malley, 265 U. S. 144 467, 469,473 Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321 701,712 Heck v. A. P. Ross Enterprises, Inc., 414 F. Supp. 971 466 Heidelberg v. Hammer, 577 F. 2d 429 991 Heimbach v. Village of Lyons, 597 F. 2d 344 735 Herbert v. Lando, 441 U. S. 153 999 Herring v. New York, 422 U. S. 853 344 Hester v. Purex Corp., 534 P. 2d 1306 742 Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold & Silver Mining Co., 93 U. S. 634 508 Hickel v. Oil Shale Corp., 400 U. S. 48 658 Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U. S. 332 212 971 Hill v. Nelson, 466 F. 2d 1346 ’ 341 Hill v. State, 237 Ga. 794 428 Hirschkop v. Virginia State Bar, 421 F. Supp: 1137 731 Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., 87 U. S. App. D. C. 57 284 Hoekstra v. Helgoland, 78 S. D. 82 285 Hogg v. Ruffner, 1 Black 115 648 Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U. S. 475 341,345- 348, 350, 351, 355, 357 Holton v. State, 243 Ga. 312 428, 432, 436, 440, 448, 454, 455 Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U. S. 1304 1315 Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles, 227 U. S. 278 499 Hooks v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 917 438,453,455 Hopkins v. Blanco, 457 Pa. 90 285 Hopson v. St. Mary’s Hospital, 176 Conn. 485 284 Hortonville School Dist. v. Hortonville Ed. Assn., 426 U. S. 482 249 Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U. S. 1 193 xLvm TABLE OF CASES CITED Page House v. State, 232 Ga. 140 429, 430,441 Howard v. United States, 377 U. S. 953 716 Howe v. Chmielinski, 237 Mass. 532 471,472 Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U. S. 507 32 Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678 728,737,738,1310 Igneri v. Cie. de Transports Oceaniques, 323 F. 2d 257 276, 279-281,283-285 Illinois Election Bd. v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U. S. 173 117 Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 21,49.639,736 Independence Mortgage Trust v. White, 446 F. Supp. 120 466 Ingram v. Kumar, 585 F. 2d 566 744 In re. See name of party. International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U. S. 50 282 Ivy v. Security Barge Lines, Inc., 606 F. 2d 524 283 Jackson v. United States, 122 U. S. App. D. C. 324 557 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 451 Jacobson v. Schaefer, 441 F. 2d 127 735 Jacobson v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 566 F. 2d 1353 732 James v. Bowman, 190 U. S. 127 208 James v. Valtierra, 402 U. S. 137 201 Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410 441 Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 325 U. S. 897 1301 J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426 39,40 Jim Walter Investors v. Empire-Madison, Inc., 401 F. Supp. 425 467 Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454 49, 483-486,488-491 Johnson v. State, 242 Ga. 649 431, 455 Page Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10 577 Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 343,351 Johnston v. Earle, 245 F. 2d 793 34 Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123 242 Jones v. Perrigan, 459 F. 2d 81 638 Jordan v. Arizona, 438 U. S. 911 438 Jordan v. Hutcheson, 323 F. 2d 597 732 Jordan v. State, 233 Ga. 929 454 Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262 428, 440 Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U. S. 351 148 Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 550 Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641 176,180,200,220 Kelsey v. Fitzgerald, 574 F. 2d 443 735 Kendall v. San Juan Silver Mining Co., 144 U. S. 658 658 Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66 1309 Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 413 U. S. 189 68, 72,135 Kilgarin v. Hill, 386 U. S. 120 63, 93 Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P. 2d 1353 742 Koch v. Zueiback, 194 F. Supp. 651 34 Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 113 Kostka v. Hogg, 560 F. 2d 37 638 Kotsiris v. Ling, 451 S. W. 2d 411 284 Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 32 Kramer v. Union School Dist., 395 U. S. 621 77,78,117,118 Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U. S. 51 117 LaClair v. United States, 347 F. 2d 486 991 Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U. S. 391 733 Lamb v. State, 241 Ga. 10 431 TABLE OF CASES CITED XLIX Page Landrum v. Moats, 576 F. 2d 1320 638 Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268 63, 130,141 Lanza v. Drexel & Co., 479 F. 2d 1277 709 Larwin Mortgage Investors v. Riverdrive Mall, Inc., 392 F. Supp. 97 467 Lassen v. Arizona ex rel. Arizona Highway Dept., 385 U. S. 458 524 Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U. S. 45 63,76, 130,131,175,201 Legare v. State, 243 Ga. 774 440 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 975,976 Lenhard v. Wolff, 444 U. S. 807 439,440 Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 234 Lincoln Associates v. Great American Mortgage Investors, 415 F. Supp. 351 466 Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614 248 Lindsey v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 592 F. 2d 1118 744 Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56 76 Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219 343 Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 536 438, 442 Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, 430 U. S. 259 76,116 Loe v. Armistead, 582 F. 2d 1291 17 Lombard v. Board of Ed., 502 F. 2d 631 498 Loper v. Beto, 405 U. S. 473 233 Lopez v. Jackson County Bd. of Supervisors, 375 F. Supp. 1194 330 Los Angeles Dept, of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702 369,382 Louisville, C., & C. R. Co. v. Leston, 2 How. 497 461 Page Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Louisville Trust Co., 174 U. S. 552 459 Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U. S. 522 490 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 114 Lubin v. Panish, 415 U. S. 709 117 Luther v. Maple, 250 F. 2d 916 285 Madison v. Octave Oil Co., 154 Cal. 768 664, 678 Maine v. United States, C. A. No. 75-2125 (DC Sept. 17, 1976) 198 Maiorana v. MacDonald, 596 F.'2d 1072 638 Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U. S. 98 1304,1305 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 633 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 42,207,211 Mariana v. Nanni, 95 R. I. 153 285 Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314 460,461 Martin v. Duffe, 463 F. 2d 464 638 Massiah v. United States, 397 U. S. 201 300 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 242 Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U. S. 455 243 McCardle, Ex parte, 7 Wall. 506 36,37 McCorquodale v. State, 233 Ga. 369 429,430,432,456 McCray v. Burrell, 516 F. 2d 357 638 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 175-177 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 332 McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183 442 McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184 76 McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759 344 McNutt v. Bland, 2 How. 9 460, 461 L TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Medical Comm, for Human Rights v. SEC, 139 U. S. App. D. C. 226 249 Meyer v. Frank, 550 F. 2d 726 484 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 114,115 Michigan v. Doran, 439 U. S. 282 1309,1310 Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U. S. 96 310,311,314 Michigan Central R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59 280 Michum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225 735 Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717 201,926 Millington v. Southeastern Elevator Co., 22 N. Y. 2d 498 285 Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U. S. 375 757 Mining Co. v. Consolidated Mining Co., 102 U. S. 167 525 Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 76 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 293,294,296-302,304, 305, 307-312, 314, 624 Missouri Pacific Transp. Co. v. Miller, 227 Ark. 351 284 Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225 21 Mizell v. North Broward Hos- pital Dist., 427 F. 2d 468 482, 498 Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55 173, 206, 208, 210, 236, 237 Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U. S. 618 281,282 Monarch Asphalt Sales Co. v. Wilshire Oil Co. of Texas, 511 F. 2d 1073 330 Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 21,483, 491, 493, 495, 496, 640 Montana Cent. R. Co. v. Migeon, 68 F. 811 664,678 Montgomery v. Stephan, 359 Mich. 33 285 Moog Industries, Inc. v. FTC, 355 U. S. 411 248 Moore v. Crawford, 130 U. S. 122 710 Page Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86 343 Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494 114 Moore v. Missouri, 159 U. S. 673 232 Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U. S. 375 275,280-285 Moran v. Quality Aluminum Casting Co., 34 Wis. 2d 542 285 Moreland v. Rucker Pharmacal Co., 63 F. R. D. 611 330 Morgan v. State, 241 Ga. 485 455 Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 IT. S. 471 243 Morrissey v. Commissioner, 296 U. S. 344 465,473,474 Morton v. Mancari, 417 IJ. S. 535 618,619 Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274 138 Murchison, In re, 349 U. S. 133 243 Murray v. Norberg, 423 F. Supp. 795 330 Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F. 2d 275 757,758 Nash County v. United States, C. A. No. 1702-66 (DC Sept. 26, 1969) 199 National Automatic Laundry & Cleaning Council v. Shultz, 143 App. D. C. 274 604 National City Bank v. Fidelco Growth Investors, 446 F. Supp. 124 466 NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U. S. 267 666,718 NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U. S. 490 173 NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U. S. 132 619 National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U. S. 833 178-180, 201,202 National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U. S. 679 193,647 Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370 61 Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 342, 1304,1305 TABLE OF CASES CITED LI Page Nevett v. Sides, 571 F. 2d 209 99-101,114 Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U. S. 400 737,738 New Mexico, Curry, McKinley, and Otero Counties v. United States, C. A. No. 76-0067 (DC July 30, 1976) 198 New York v. United States, C. A. No. 2419-71 (DC Apr. 13, 1972) 198,199 New York & Long Branch Steamboat Co. v. Johnson, 195 F. 740 280 Nichols v. Sonneman, 91 Idaho 199 284 Nishi v. Hartwell, 42 Haw. 284 284 Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587 72 North Dakota Pharmacy Bd. v. Snyder’s Stores, 414 U. S. 156 290 Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294 668 Novak v. Kansas City Transit, Inc., 365 S. W. 2d 539 285 Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355 326, 333,489,490 O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563 639 Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11 243 O’Neal v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 523 P. 2d 614 742 Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714 221,624- 626, 630, 631, 633, 634 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112 176,177,201-203, 213, 215, 216, 220, 221 Orr v. Orr, 440 U. S. 268 150, 151,285 Orstein v. Regan, 574 F. 2d 115 498 Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738 43 O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 736 O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U. S. 318 484 Page Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 41, 45, 46, 638, 639, 903 Oyler v. Boles, 368 U. S. 448 232 Pallin v. United States, 496 F. 2d 27 537 Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217 132,134,135 Passante v. Walden Printing Co., 53 App. Div. 2d 8 147,150 Patton v. Mississippi, 332 U. S. 463 72 Payne v. New Mexico, 255 U. S. 367 511,526,527,539 Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573 902,903,905,932 P. C. Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford, 444 U. S. 69 905 People v. Cunningham, 49 N. Y. 2d 203 314 People v. Federated Radio Corp., 244 N. Y. 33 700, 712,713 Pequea Valley School Dist. v. Commonwealth Dept, of Ed., 36 Pa. Commw. 403 978 Perez v. Boston Housing Authority, 400 N. E. 2d 1231 249 Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 161,172,187,211 Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 115 Person v. Association of Bar of New York, 544 F. 2d 534 736 Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256 63,67,72,104,105, 121, 136, 137, 139, 140 Pesce v. Summa Corp., 54 Cal. App. 3d 86 277 Petersburg v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 1021 186,188,212 Peterson v. Albert M. Bender Co., 75 F. R. D. 661 330 Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford, 444 U. S. .69 905 Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 114,975 Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. . 354 72 Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 639, 640,735 Ln TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52 114 Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406 281,283 Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U. S. 395 327 Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 277,229 Prashar v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 480 F. 2d 947 744 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475 406 Presnell v. Georgia, 439 U. S. 14 438,453 Prevatte v. State, 233 Ga. 929 454 Priestly v. Treasurer & Receiver General, 230 Mass. 452 471 Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 114 Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555 551,639,640 Proffitt v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 242 428 Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120 279,290 Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337 U. S. 530 743-753 Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496 496,497 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 666 Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 152 Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U. S. 62 288-290 Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549 368 Rewis v. United States, 401 U. S. 808 406 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 65,77,78,83,84, 113, 115-118, 124, 128 Rice v. Elmore, 165 F. 2d 387 131 Richmond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358 172,186-188,211 Rios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253 571 Riverside Memorial Mausoleum, Inc. v. UMET Trust, 581 F. 2d 62 466 Page Roberts v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 910 438 Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U. S. 584 21,24,25,30,49, 50, 483-486, 489, 490 Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125 249 Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 46 Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 12 Cal. 3d 382 284 Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 114 Roemer v. Maryland Public Works Bd., 426 U. S. 736 974, 977 Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156 82,106,112 Romer v. Leary, 425 F. 2d 186 484 Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397 737 Rose v. K. K. Masutoku Toy Factory Co., 597 F. 2d 215 744 Ruffin v. State, 243 Ga. 95 428, 436,455 Ryder’s Case, 341 Mass. 661 471 S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614 248 Safety Harbor v. Birchfield, 529 F. 2d 1251 732 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. James, 161 U. S. 545 461 St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Barry, 438 U. S. 531 705 Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water Dist., 410 U. S. 719 117 Sampson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6 402-409,411-418 San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1 76,113,118,124,138 Savage v. New York, N. & H. S.S. Co., 185 F. 778 280 Scarpuzza v. Blum, 73 App. Div. 2d 237 1314 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232 21, 639,641 Schneekloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 551,552,554,555,557 School Dist. of Pittsburgh v. Commonwealth Dept, of Ed., 33 Pa. Commw. 535 978 School Dist. of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Dept, of Ed., 443 U. S. 901 971-973 TABLE OF CASES CITED Lm Page Schreiner v. Fruit, 519 P. 2d 462 284 Scott v. Illinois, 440 U. S. 367 222, 224-227, 229, 230, 231, 233-235 Sea Gull, The, 21 F. Cas. 909 282 Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U. S. 573 275, 276,280-286 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U. S. 427 7,8,10 Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85 280,282,283 Seatrajn Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 444 U. S. 572 666 SEC v. American Realty Trust, 586 F. 2d 1001 715 SEC v. Blatt, 583 F. 2d 1325 678 SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, 375 U. S. 180 691-695, 697, 705, 706, 709-711 SEC v. Cenco, Inc., 436 F. Supp. 193 687 SEC v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U. S. 344 705 SEC v. Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc., 574 F. 2d 90 701 SEC v. Coven, 581 F. 2d 1020 686, 715,716 SEC v. Dolnick, 501 F. 2d 1279 715 SEC v. Geyser Minerals Corp., 452 F. 2d 876 715 SEC v. Keller Corp., 323 F. 2d 397 703 SEC v. Management Dynamics, Inc., 515 F. 2d 801 715,717 SEC v. Manor Nursing Centers, Inc., 458 F. 2d 1082 703, 715,717 SEC v. North American Research & Development Corp., 424 F. 2d 63 714 SEC v. Sloan, 436 U. S. 103 666, 694,695 SEC v. Spectrum, Ltd., 489 F. 2d 535 714 SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F. 2d 833 715 SEC v. Van Horn, 371 F. 2d 181 715 Page SEC v. Wills, 472 F. Supp. 1250 701 SEC v. World Radio Mission, Inc., 544 F. 2d 535 687,715,717 Seitz v. Jones, 370 P. 2d 300 751 Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186 46 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 76,113 Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441 36,37 Shelton v. Ohio, 438 IT. S. 909 438 Shields v. Jackson, 570 F. 2d 284 992 Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40 553,557,572,576 Siebold, Ex parte, 100 U. S. 371 126 Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 624,630 Simson v. Klipstein, 262 F. 823 467 Sixty-Seventh Minn. State Sen- ate v. Beens, 406 U. S. 187 81 Skehan v. Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State College, 538 F. 2d 53 638 Skinner v. Oklahoma ex. rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 114 Skipp v. Todd, 568 F. 2d 133 735 Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649 63-65,126 Smith v. Klecker, 554 F. 2d 848 732 Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S. 816 1324 Smith v. Peters, 482 F. 2d 799 744 Smyth v. United States, 302 U. S. 329 265 South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301 174-178, 180, 182, 183, 200-203, 205, 207, 214, 215, 220 Southern Pacific Co. v. Gileo, 351 U. S. 493 288 Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101 60 Sperling v. United States, 515 F. 2d 465 758 Spraggins v. State, 243 Ga. 73 455 Springfield School Dist. v. Commonwealth Dept, of Ed., 35 Pa. Commw. 71 978 LIV TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Page Springfield School Dist. v. Dept, of Ed., 483 Pa. 539 973, 978 979 Sprouse v. State, 242 Ga. 831 454 Stack v. State, 234 Ga. 19 454 Stanley v. State, 240 Ga. 341 432 Star Distributors, Ltd. v. Marino, 613 F. 2d 4 732 State. See also name of State. State v. Davis, 110 Ariz. 29 347 State Street Trust Co. v. Hall, 311 Mass. 299 472,473 Steadman v. SEC, 603 F. 2d 1126 686 Steelworkers v. Bouligany, Inc., 382 U. S. 145 461,463,474,475 Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 634 Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 76 Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 460 Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen, 444 U. S. 69 905 Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 349 735 Sugar Institute v. United States, 297 U. S. 553 647 Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U. S. 6 689,705 Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487 126 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U. S. 1 42, 43, 82, 924, 925, 927 Swanson v. Marra Bros., 328 U. S. 1 282 Swartz v. United States Steel Corp., 283 Ala. 439 284 Sweeny v. Woodall, 344 U. S. 86 1309,1310 Swietlowich v. Bucks County, 620 F. 2d 33 759 Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 38, 744,745 Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375 648 Sylvester v. Messier, 351 F. 2d 472 744 Sylvestri v. Warner & Swasey Co., 398 F. 2d 598 744,749 Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U. S. 488 243 TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153 51, 405,410,666 Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 732,733 Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461 63-65,102,126,131 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 549, 551-555, 560, 561-563, 567, 568, 571, 573, 575 Thacker v. Bordenkircher, 590 F. 2d 640 348 Thill v. Modem Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508 285 Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 195 U. S. 207 463 Thomas v. State, 240 Ga. 393 432 Thomasville Branch of NAACP v. Thomas County, Georgia, 571 F. 2d 257 100 Thompson v. Oklahoma, 429 U. S. 1053 958 Timmerman v. Brown, 528 F. 2d 811 735 Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258 344 Tomarchio v. Township of Greenwich, 75 N. J. 62 147,150 Torres v. Mathews, 426 F. Supp. 1106 655 Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U. S. 465 653,654 Torres v. Sachs, C. A. No. 73-3921 (CES) (SDNY Sept. 27, 1973) 199 Touche Ross & Co. v. Reding-ton, 442 U. S. 560 39, 40,60,695 Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293 341,342 Townsend v. Wathen, 9 East. 277 137 Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U. S. 11 39,40,60 Tritsis v. Backer, 501 F. 2d 1021 638 Troue v. Marker, 253 Ind. 284 284 Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33 115 Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 241-243,246-252 Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8 37 TABLE OF CASES CITED LV Page Turpin v. Mailet, 591 F. 2d 426 30 Tyler v. Tyler, 578 P. 2d 1214 752 Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1 668, 676 Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N. Y. 170 713 Union Oil Co. v. Smith, 249 U. S. 337 677 United Air Lines, Inc. v. Mc-Mann, 434 U. S. 192 601 United Bank of Pueblo v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 529 F. 2d 490 7 United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 F. 2d 837 705 United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144 79,86, 111, 120, 127, 212, 214 United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U. S. 115 627 United States v. Atkinson, 565 F. 2d 1283 348 United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336 406 United States v. Benjamin, 328 F. 2d 845 716 United States v. Board of Comm’rs of Sheffield, Ala., 435 U. S. 110 161,166,168, 169, 191, 192, 194, 196- 198, 200, 201, 205, 206 United States v. Brignoni- Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 549,551, 556, 561, 564, 567, 570 United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338 634 United States v. Calhoun, 542 F. 2d 1094 1305 United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 255,268 United States v. California, 339 U. S. 699 256 United States v. California, 381 U. S. 139 258 United States v. Carrington, 543 F. 2d 1053 348 United States v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 471 F. 2d 582 327 United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299 126 Page United States v. Coleman, 390 U. S. 599 660,673 United States v. Cox, 580 F. 2d 317 346,348 United States v. Crawford, 576 F. 2d 794 1305 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 61 United States v. De Barry, 487 F. 2d 448 346 United States v. Faneca, 332 F. 2d 872 34 United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358 666 United States v. Georgia Power Co., 474 F. 2d 906 328 United States v. Gidley, 527 F. 2d 1345 1304,1306 United States v. Gillock, 445 U. S. 360 733 United States v. Gorin, 564 U. S. 169 960 United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745 « 208 United States v. Hayes Int’l Corp., 456 F. 2d 112 328 United States v. Hernandez, 486 F. 2d 614 960 United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32 38,39 United States v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 128 U. S. 673 677 United States v. Iron Workers Local 86, 443 F. 2d 544 328 United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169 733 United States v. Kidding, 560 F. 2d 1303 347 United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128 37 United States v. Knox, 396 U. S. 77 626,627 United States v. Kroll, 547 F. 2d 393 641 United States v. Kutas, 542 F. 2d 527 348 United States v. Lavarro, 420 F. 2d 769 348 United States v. Lawriw, 568 F. 2d 98 346 United States v. Louisiana, 337 U. S.902; 337 U.S. 928 255 LVI TABLE OF CASES CITED Page United States v. Louisiana, 340 U. S. 890; 350 U. S. 990 256 United States v. Louisiana, 351 U. S. 978 256,261,269 United States v. Louisiana, 354 U. S. 515 257 United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1 257,268,271 United States v. Louisiana, 364 U. S. 502 257,261,271 United States v. Louisiana, 382 U. S. 288 257,258,262,271 United States v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 11 258 United States v. Louisiana, 404 U. S. 388 258,259 United States v. Louisiana, 409 U. S. 17; 423 U. S. 909 259 United States v. Louisiana, 420 U. S. 529 259,271 United States v. Louisiana, 422 U. S. 13 259,262,271,272 United States v. Mandell, 525 F. 2d 671 347,348 United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 554, 557,563,567 United States v. Mavrick, 601 F. 2d 921 346 United States v. McCaleb, 552 F. 2d 717 549,550 United States v. McLeroy, 584 F. 2d 746 960 United States v. Medel, 592 F. 2d 1305 347 United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535 903 United States v. Morrison, 240 U. S. 192 507,523,524 United States v. Mosley, 238 U. S. 383 126 United States v. Munsinger, 340 U. S. 36 904 United States v. Naftalin, 441 U. S. 768 697,706 United States v. National Assn, of Securities Dealers, 422 U. S. 694 668,676 United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 207,211 United States v. N. L. Industries, Inc., 479 F. 2d 354 328 Page United States v. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co., 329 U. S. 654 265 United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 90,91,132,135 United States v. Ohio Oil Co., 240 F. 2d 996 664,678 United States v. Oregon, 366 U. S. 643 200 United States v. Ortiz, 442 U. S. 891 563 United States v. Pheaster, 544 F. 2d 353 1305 United States v. Powell, 423 U. S. 87 588 United States v. Price, 361 U. S. 304 666 United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214 61,62 United States v. Robinson, 536 F. 2d 1298 960 United States v. Rutherford, 442 U. S. 544 718 United States v. St. Louis- S. F. R. Co., 464 F. 2d 301 327, 328 United States v. Saylor, 322 U. S. 385 126 United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150 647 United States v. Steele, 576 F. 2d 111 346 United States v. Sweet, 245 U. S. 563 508,509,525 United States v. Texas, 340 U. S. 900 256,268 United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U. S. 290 647 United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 U. S. 392 647 United States v. Tucker, 404 U. S. 443 233 United States v. Unverzagt, 424 F. 2d 396 960 United States v. Valdivia, 492 F. 2d 199 1305 United States v. Van Lewis, 409 F. 2d 535 562,574 United States v. Waldman, 579 F. 2d 649 346,353 United States v. Wong, 431 U. S. 174 627 TABLE OF CASES CITED Lvn Page United States v. Wyoming, 331 U. S. 440 507,532,535,536 United States ex rei. Hart v. Davenport, 478 F. 2d 203 340, 345 Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corp. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Comm’n, 393 U. S. 186 618 University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265 113,139 Utah Power & Light Co. v. EPA, 180 U. S. App. D. C. 70 596 Vaca v. Sipes, 383 U. S. 171 248 Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93 121 Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S. 252 342 Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp., 503 F. 2d 1131 758 Velleca v. Superintendent, 523 F. 2d 1040 341 Virginia, Ex parte, 100 U. S. 339 177,735 Virginia v. United States, 386 F. Supp. 1319 204 Wake County, N. C. v. United States, C. A. No. 1198-66 (DC Jan. 23, 1967) 198 Walder v. United States, 347 U. S. 62 623-625,629,631,632 Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Systems, Inc., 180 U. S. App. D. C. 306 744,751 Wall Products Co. v. National Gypsum Co., 326 F. Supp. 295 649 Walter Investors v. Empire-Madison, Inc., 401 F. Supp. 425 467 Ward v. State, 239 Ga. 205 455 Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U. S. 57 241- 243, 246-248, 251, 252 Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 63,66- 71, 73, 77, 91, 94, 99, 100, 102-104, 113-115, 120-122, 124, 125, 128, 130, 132, 133, 137, 138 Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 624 Page Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636 147,148,151,153 Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 83,116 West v. Louisiana, 478 F. 2d 1026 343 Westcott v. McAllister Bros., Inc., 463 F. Supp. 1039 277 West Penn Power Co. v. Train, 522 F. 2d 302 604 Whalen v. United States, 445 U. S. 684 413,418,419,903,962 Wharton v. Knefel, 562 F. 2d 550 758 Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U. S. 647 37,41,42 Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 125 66,70,73,79,80, 87, 90, 93, 95, 101, 109, 111, 117, 119, 218, 219 White v. Register, 412 U. S. 755 66,68,69,74,79,84, 93, 95-97, 99-103, 109-112, 114, 119, 120, 122, 125, 127, 135, 140, 141 Whittlesey v. Miller, 572 S. W. 2d 665 285 Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58 126 Williams v. Brown, 446 U. S. 236 94,103 Williams v. Inhabitants of Mil- ton, 215 Mass. 1 469,470-472 Williams v. Williams, 532 F. 2d 120 735 Willis v. State, 243 Ga. 185 440 Winters v. Lavine, 574 F. 2d 46 496 Wisconsin v. Lane, 245 U. S. 427 507 Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U. S. 535 70,120 Witherow v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 530 F. 2d 160 744 Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 453 Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U. S. 35 252 Wolman v. Walter, 433 U. S. 229 973-977,979 Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308 639,641 Woods v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 910 438 LVIII TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 428 Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 407 U. S. 451 132 Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S. 52 63,67,83,87,88,92, 124, 125, 127, 130, 131 Wyoming v. United States, 255 U. S. 489 511,515,526,527,539 Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414 592 Yarborough, Ex parte, 110 U. S. 651 61,126 Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85 572 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 115,217 Page Yonner v. Adams, 53 Del. 229 284 Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231 17,551 Young, Ex parte, 209 U. S. 123 43,737 Young v. State, 239 Ga. 53 440 Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 48,492,736 Yuba County, Cal. v. United States, C. A. No. 75-2170 (DC May 25, 1976) 199 Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374 114 Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F. 2d 1297 71-73,90,101,106 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPEEME COUET OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1979 CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 79-105. Argued January 14, 1980—Decided April 22, 1980 Petitioner brought a diversity action in Federal District Court against respondent, seeking damages and reformation with regard to a certain series of contracts between the parties. Various claims were asserted, including a $19 million claim for amounts due on the contracts already performed. Respondent filed counterclaims. The facts as to most of the claims and counterclaims are in dispute, but the sole dispute as to petitioner’s claim for the $19 million balance due concerns the application of a release clause in each of the contracts. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner for $19 million, plus prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 6%, notwithstanding the release clause. Petitioner then moved for a certification of this judgment as a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (b), which provides that when more than one claim is presented in an action, whether as a claim or counterclaim, a district court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. The court granted the motion and directed entry of final judgment for petitioner after determining that there was “no just reason for delay” and finding, inter alia, that certification would not result in unnecessary appellate review; that the claims finally adjudicated were separate from 1 2 OCTOBER TERM, 1979 Syllabus 446 U. S. any of the other claims or counterclaims; that the nature of the claims was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals; that petitioner would suffer severe financial loss from nonpayment of the $19 millinn judgment because current interest rates were higher than the statutory prejudgment rates; and that the solvency of the parties was not a significant factor since each appeared to be financially sound. Dismissing the case for want of an appealable order, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court had abused its discretion by granting the Rule 54 (b) certification, since the possibility of a setoff required that the status quo be maintained unless petitioner could show harsh or unusual circumstances and since no such showing had been made. Held: The District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting petitioner’s motion for certification under Rule 54(b). Pp. 7-13. (a) In deciding whether there are just reasons to delay an appeal of individual final judgments in a setting such as this, a district court must take into account the interests of sound judicial administration as well as the equities involved. Hence, it was proper for the District Court here to consider such factors as whether the claims under review were separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals. The mere presence of nonfrivolous counterclaims does not render a Rule 54 (b) certification inappropriate. Pp. 8-9. (b) The Court of Appeals’ holding that the status quo had to be maintained absent a showing by petitioner of harsh or unusual circumstances reflects a misinterpretation of the standard of review for Rule 54 (b) certifications and a misperception of the appellate function in such cases. Pp. 9-10. (c) The proper standard against which a district court’s exercise of discretion in granting a Rule 54 (b) certification is to be judged is the interest of sound judicial administration. Under this standard, although the court of appeals must scrutinize the district court’s evaluation of such factors as the interrelationship of the claims so as to prevent piecemeal appeals, once such juridical concerns have been met, the district court’s discretionary judgment should be given substantial deference, and the court of appeals should disturb the district court’s assessment of the equities only if it can say that the district judge’s conclusion was clearly unreasonable. Pp. 10-11. (d) The question before the District Court here came down to which of the parties should get the benefit of the difference between the pre- CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 3 1 Opinion of the Court judgment and market rates of interest on the debts admittedly owing and adjudged to be due while unrelated claims were litigated. While the possibility of a setoff against the amount respondent owed petitioner was not an insignificant factor, the District Court took this into account when it determined that both litigants appeared to be financially sound, and that petitioner would be able to satisfy a judgment on the counterclaims if any were entered. Pp. 11-12. 597 F. 2d 35, vacated and remanded. Burger, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Ralph N. Del Deo argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Richard S. Zackin, David Lasky, and Alfred J. Kovell. Isaac N. Groner argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Walter H. Fleischer, Alfred F. Belcuore, and Albert G. Besser. Mr. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (b) allows a district court dealing with multiple claims or multiple parties to direct the entry of final judgment as to fewer than all of the claims or parties; to do so, the court must make an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. We granted certiorari in order to examine the use of this procedural device. 444 U. S. 823 (1979). I From 1968 to 1972, respondent General Electric Co. entered into a series of 21 contracts with petitioner Curtiss-Wright Corp, for the manufacture of components designed for use in nuclear powered naval vessels. These contracts had a total value of $215 million. In 1976, Curtiss-Wright brought a diversity action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking damages and reformation with regard to the 21 contracts. The complaint asserted claims based on alleged fraud, 4 OCTOBER TERM, 1979 Opinion of the Court 446U.S. misrepresentation, and breach of contract by General Electric. It also sought $19 million from General Electric on the outstanding balance due on the contracts already performed. General Electric counterclaimed for $1.9 million in costs allegedly incurred as the result of “extraordinary efforts” provided to Curtiss-Wright during performance of the contracts which enabled Curtiss-Wright to avoid a contract default. General Electric also sought, by way of counterclaim, to recover $52 million by which Curtiss-Wright was allegedly unjustly enriched as a result of these “extraordinary efforts.” The facts underlying most of these claims and counterclaims are in dispute. As to Curtiss-Wright’s claims for the $19 million balance due, however, the sole dispute concerns the application of a release clause contained in each of the 21 agreements, which states that “Seller . . . agree [s] as a condition precedent to final payment, that the Buyer and the Government . . . are released from all liabilities, obligations and claims arising under or by virtue of this order.” App. 103a. When Curtiss-Wright moved for summary judgment on the balance due, General Electric contended that so long as Curtiss-Wright’s other claims remained pending, this provision constituted a bar to recovery of the undisputed balance. The District Court rejected this contention and granted summary judgment for Curtiss-Wright on this otherwise undisputed claim. Applying New York law by which the parties had agreed to be bound, the District Court held that Curtiss-Wright was entitled to payment of the balance due notwithstanding the release clause. The court also ruled that Curtiss-Wright was entitled to pre judgment interest at the New York statutory rate of 6% per annum. Curtiss-Wright then moved for a certification of the District Court’s orders as final judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (b),1 which provides: “When more than one claim for relief is presented in an 1 This was the second motion by Curtiss-Wright for Rule 54 (b) cer CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 5 1 Opinion of the Court action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” The court expressly directed entry of final judgment for Curtiss-Wright and made the determination that there was “no just reason for delay” pursuant to Rule 54 (b). The District Court also provided a written statement of reasons supporting its decision to certify the judgment as final. It acknowledged that Rule 54 (b) certification was not to be granted as a matter of course, and that this remedy should be reserved for the infrequent harsh case because of the overload in appellate courts which would otherwise result from appeals of an interlocutory nature. The essential inquiry was stated to be “whether, after balancing the competing factors, finality of judgment should be ordered to advance the interests of sound judicial administration and justice to the litigants.” The District Court then went on to identify the relevant factors in the case before it. It found that certification would not result in unnecessary appellate review; that the claims tification. An earlier motion was denied by the District Court because at that time the matter of prejudgment interest had not yet been resolved. 6 OCTOBER TERM, 1979 Opinion of the Court 446U.S. finally adjudicated were separate, distinct, and independent of any of the other claims or counterclaims involved; that review of these adjudicated claims would not be mooted by any future developments in the case; and that the nature of the claims was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals. Turning to considerations of justice to the litigants, the District Court found that Curtiss-Wright would suffer severe daily financial loss from nonpayment of the $19 million judgment because current interest rates were higher than the statutory prejudgment rate, a situation compounded by the large amount of money involved. The court observed that the complex nature of the remaining claims could, without certification, mean a delay that “would span many months, if not years.” The court found that solvency of the parties was not a significant factor, since each appeared to be financially sound. Although the presence of General Electric’s counterclaims and the consequent possibility of a setoff recovery were factors which weighed against certification, the court, in balancing these factors, determined that they were outweighed by the other factors in the case. Accordingly, it granted Rule 54 (b) certification. It also granted General Electric’s motion for a stay without bond pending appeal. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the case was controlled by its decision in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 521 F. 2d 360 (1975), where the court had stated: “In the absence of unusual or harsh circumstances, we believe that the presence of a counterclaim, which could result in a set-off against any amounts due and owing to the plaintiff, weighs heavily against the grant of 54 (b) certification.” Id., at 366 (footnote omitted). In Allis-Chalmers, the court defined unusual or harsh cir- CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 7 1 Opinion of the Court cumstances as those factors “involving considerations of solvency, economic duress, etc.” Id., at 366, n. 14. In the Third Circuit’s view, the question was which of the parties should have the benefit of the amount of the balance due pending final resolution of the litigation. The court held that Allis-Chalmers dictated “that the matter remain in status quo when non-frivolous counterclaims are pending, and in the absence of unusual or harsh circumstances.” 597 F. 2d 35, 36 (1979) (per curiam). The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Curtiss-Wright’s inability to have use of the money from the judgment might seem harsh, but noted that the same could be said for General Electric if it were forced to pay Curtiss-Wright now but later prevailed on its counterclaims. Ibid. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court had abused its discretion by granting Rule 54 (b) certification in this situation and dismissed the case for want of an appealable order; it also directed the District Court to vacate its Rule 54 (b) determination of finality. Curtiss-Wright’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc were denied. 599 F. 2d 1259 (1979). Four judges dissented from that denial, observing that the case was in conflict with United Bank of Pueblo v. Hartford Accident de Indemnity Co., 529 F. 2d 490 (CAIO 1976). We reverse. II Nearly a quarter of a century ago, in Sears, Roebuck <& Co. v. Mackey, 351 U. S. 427 (1956), this Court outlined the steps to be followed in making determinations under Rule 54 (b). A district court must first determine that it is dealing with a “final judgment.” It must be a “judgment” in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must be “final” in the sense that it is “an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” 351 U. S., at 436. 8 OCTOBER TERM, 1979 Opinion of the Court 446U.S. Once having found finality, the district court must go on to determine whether there is any just reason for delay. Not all final judgments on individual claims should be immediately appealable, even if they are in some sense separable from the remaining unresolved claims. The function of the district court under the Rule is to act as a “dispatcher.” Id., at 435. It is left to the sound judicial discretion of the district court to determine the “appropriate time” when each final decision in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal. Ibid. This discretion is to be exercised “in the interest of sound judicial administration.” Id., at 437. Thus, in deciding whether there are no just reasons to delay the appeal of individual final judgments in a setting such as this, a district court must take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved. Consideration of the former is necessary to assure that application of the Rule effectively “preserves the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.” Id., at 438. It was therefore proper for the District Judge here to consider such factors as whether the claims under review were separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals? Here the District Judge saw no sound reason to delay appellate resolution of the undisputed claims already adjudicated. The contrary conclusion of the Court of Appeals was strongly 2 We do not suggest that the presence of one of these factors would necessarily mean that Rule 54 (b) certification would be improper. It would, however, require the district court to find a sufficiently important reason for nonetheless granting certification. For example, if the district court concluded that there was a possibility that an appellate court would have to face the same issues on a subsequent appeal, this might, perhaps be offset by a finding that an appellate resolution of the certified claims would facilitate a settlement of the remainder of the claims. See Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co., 351 U. S. 445, 450, n. 5 (1956). CURTISS-WEIGHT CORP. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 9 1 Opinion of the Court influenced by the existence of nonfrivolous counterclaims. The mere presence of such claims, however, does not render a Rule 54 (b) certification inappropriate. If it did, Rule 54 (b) would lose much of its utility. In Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering de Foundry Co., 351 U. S. 445 (1956), this Court explained that counterclaims, whether compulsory or permissive, present no special problems for Rule 54 (b) determinations; counterclaims are not to be evaluated differently from other claims. 351 U. S., at 452. Like other claims, their significance for Rule 54 (b) purposes turns on their interrelationship with the claims on which certification is sought. Here, the District Judge determined that General Electric’s counterclaims were severable from the claims which had been determined in terms of both the factual and the legal issues involved. The Court of Appeals did not conclude otherwise. What the Court of Appeals found objectionable about the District Judge’s exercise of discretion was the assessment of the equities involved. The Court of Appeals concluded that the possibility of a setoff required that the status quo be maintained unless petitioner could show harsh or unusual circumstances; it held that such a showing had not been made in the District Court. This holding reflects a misinterpretation of the standard of review for Rule 54 (b) certifications and a misperception of the appellate function in such cases. The Court of Appeals relied on a statement of the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure, and its error derives from reading a description in the commentary as a standard of construction. When Rule 54 (b) was amended in 1946, the Notes of the Advisory Committee which accompanied the suggested amendment indicated that the entire lawsuit was generally the appropriate unit for appellate review, “and that this rule needed only the exercise of a discretionary power to afford a remedy in the infrequent harsh case to provide a simple, definite, workable rule.” 28 U. S. C. App., p. 484; 5 F. R. D. 433, 473 (1946). 10 OCTOBER TERM, 1979 Opinion of the Court 446U.S. However accurate it may be as a description of cases qualifying for Rule 54 (b) treatment, the phrase “infrequent harsh case” in isolation is neither workable nor entirely reliable as a benchmark for appellate review. There is no indication it was ever intended by the drafters to function as such. In Sears, the Court stated that the decision to certify was with good reason left to the sound judicial discretion of the district court. At the same time, the Court noted that “ [ w] ith equally good reason, any abuse of that discretion remains reviewable by the Court of Appeals.” 351 U. S., at 437 (emphasis added). The Court indicated that the standard against which a district court’s exercise of discretion is to be judged is the “interest of sound judicial administration.” Ibid. Admittedly this presents issues not always easily resolved, but the proper role of the court of appeals is not to reweigh the equities or reassess the facts but to make sure that the conclusions derived from those weighings and assessments are juridically sound and supported by the record. There are thus two aspects to the proper function of a reviewing court in Rule 54 (b) cases. The court of appeals must, of course, scrutinize the district court’s evaluation of such factors as the interrelationship of the claims so as to prevent piecemeal appeals in cases which should be reviewed only as single units. But once such juridical concerns have been met, the discretionary judgment of the district court should be given substantial deference, for that court is “the one most likely to be familiar with the case and with any justifiable reasons for delay.” Sears, supra, at 437. The reviewing court should disturb the trial court’s assessment of the equities only if it can say that the judge’s conclusion was clearly unreasonable. Plainly, sound judicial administration does not require that Rule 54 (b) requests be granted routinely. That is implicit in commending them to the sound discretion of a district court. Because this discretion “is, with good reason, vested by the rule primarily” in the district courts, Sears, supra, at 437, and because the number of possible situations is large, we are CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 11 1 Opinion of the Court reluctant either to fix or sanction narrow guidelines foy the district courts to follow. We are satisfied, however, that on the record here the District Court’s assessment of the equities was reasonable. One of the equities which the District Judge considered was the difference between the statutory and market rates of interest. Respondent correctly points out that adjustment of the statutory pre judgment interest rate is a matter within the province of the legislature, but that fact does not make the existing differential irrelevant for Rule 54 (b) purposes. If the judgment is otherwise certifiable, the fact that a litigant who has successfully reduced his claim to judgment stands to lose money because of the difference in interest rates is surely not a “just reason for delay.” The difference between the pre judgment and market interest rates was not the only factor considered by the District Court. The court also noted that the debts in issue were liquidated and large, and that absent Rule 54 (b) certification they would not be paid for “many months, if not years” because the rest of the litigation could be expected to continue for that period of time. The District Judge had noted earlier in his opinion on the merits of the release clause issue that respondent General Electric contested neither the amount of the debt nor the fact that it must eventually be paid. App. 164a-172a. The only contest was over the effect of the release clause on the timing of the payment, an isolated and strictly legal issue on which summary judgment had been entered against respondent. The question before the District Court thus came down to which of the parties should get the benefit of the difference between the pre judgment and market rates of interest on debts admittedly owing and adjudged to be due while unrelated claims were litigated. The central factor weighing in favor of General Electric was that its pending counterclaims created the possibility of a setoff against the amount it owed petitioner. 12 OCTOBER TERM, 1979 Opinion of the Court 446 U. S. This possibility was surely not an insignificant factor, especially since the counterclaims had survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Id., at 173a-174a. But the District Court took this into account when it determined that both litigants appeared to be in financially sound condition, and that Curtiss-Wright would be able to satisfy a judgment on the counterclaims should any be entered. The Court of Appeals concluded that this was not enough, and suggested that the presence of such factors as economic duress and insolvency would be necessary to qualify the judgment for Rule 54 (b) certification. 597 F. 2d, at 36. But if Curtiss-Wright were under a threat of insolvency, that factor alone would weigh against qualifying; that very threat would cast doubt upon Curtiss-Wright’s capacity to produce all or part of the $19 million should General Electric prevail on some of its counterclaims. Such a showing would thus in fact be self-defeating. Nor is General Electric’s solvency a dispositive factor; if its financial position were such that a delay in entry of judgment on Curtiss-Wright’s claims would impair Curtiss-Wright’s ability to collect on the judgment, that would weigh in favor of certification. But the fact that General Electric is capable of paying either now or later is not a “just reason for delay.” At most, as the District Court found, the fact that neither party is or will become insolvent renders that factor neutral in a proper weighing of the equities involved. The question in cases such as this is likely to be close, but the task of weighing and balancing the contending factors is peculiarly one for the trial judge, who can explore all the facets of a case. As we have noted, that assessment merits substantial deference on review. Here, the District Court’s assessment of the equities between the parties was based on an intimate knowledge of the case and is a reasonable one. The District Court having found no other reason justifying delay, we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion in CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 13 1 Opinion of the Court granting petitioner’s motion for certification under Rule 54 (b).3 Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. 3 We note that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 (h) allows a court certifying a judgment under Rule 54 (b) to stay its enforcement until the entering of a subsequent judgment or judgments. Rule 62 (h) also states that the court “may prescribe such conditions as are necessary to secure the benefit thereof to the party in whose favor the judgment is entered.” Under this Rule, we assume it would be within the power of the District Court to protect all parties by having the losing party deposit the amount of the judgment with the court, directing the Clerk to purchase high yield government obligations and to hold them pending the outcome of the case. In this way, valid considerations of economic duress and solvency, which do not affect the juridical considerations involved in a Rule 54 (b) determination, can be provided for without preventing Rule 54 (b) certification. In the instant case, after certifying the judgment as final under Rule 54 (b), the District Court granted respondent’s motion for a stay of judgment without bond, but only pending resolution of the appeal. 14 OCTOBER TERM, 1979 Syllabus 446 U. S. CARLSON, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al. v. GREEN, ADMINISTRATRIX CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 78-1261. Argued January 7, 1980—Decided April 22, 1980 Respondent brought suit in Federal District Court in Indiana on behalf of her deceased son's estate, alleging that her son while a prisoner in a federal prison in Indiana suffered personal injuries from which he died because petitioner prison officials violated, inter alia, his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to give him proper medical attention. Asserting jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a), respondent claimed compensatory and punitive damages. The District Court held that the allegations pleaded a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, thus giving rise to a cause of action for damages under Bivens n. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 IT. S. 388, under which it was established that victims of a constitutional violation by a federal official have a right to recover damages against the official in federal court despite the absence of any statute conferring such a right. But the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that, although the decedent could have maintained the action if he had survived, the damages remedy as a matter of federal law was limited to that provided by Indiana’s survivorship and wrongful-death laws, which the court construed as making the damages available to the decedent’s estate insufficient to meet §1331 (a)’s $10,000 jurisdictional-amount requirement. While otherwise agreeing with the District Court, the Court of Appeals held that the latter requirement was satisfied because whenever a state survivorship statute would abate a Bivens-type action, the federal common law allows survival of the action. Held: 1. A Bivens remedy is available to respondent even though the allegations could also support a suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Pp. 18-23. (a) Neither of the situations in which a cause of action under Bivens may be defeated are present here. First, the case involves no special factors counseling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress, petitioners not enjoying such independent status in our CARLSON v. GREEN 15 14 Syllabus constitutional scheme as to suggest that judicially created remedies against them might be inappropriate. Second, there is no explicit congressional declaration that persons injured by federal officers’ violations of the Eighth Amendment may not recover damages from the officers but must be remitted to another remedy, equally effective in Congress’ view. There is nothing in the FTCA or its legislative history to show that Congress meant to pre-empt a Bivens remedy or to create an equally effective remedy for constitutional violations. Rather, in the absence of a contrary expression from Congress, the FTCA’s provision creating a cause of action against the United States for intentional torts committed by federal law enforcement officers, contemplates that victims of the kind of intentional wrongdoing alleged in the complaint in this case shall have an action under the FTCA against the United States as well as a Bivens action against the individual officials alleged to have infringed their constitutional rights. Pp. 18-20. (b) The following factors also support the conclusion that Congress did not intend to limit respondent to an FTCA action: (i) the Bivens remedy, being recoverable against individuals, is a more effective deterrent than the FTCA remedy against the United States; (ii) punitive damages may be awarded in a Bivens suit, but are statutorily prohibited in an FTCA suit; (iii) a plaintiff cannot opt for a jury trial in an FTCA action as he may in a Bivens suit; and (iv) an action under the FTCA exists only if the State in which the alleged misconduct occurred would permit a cause of action for that misconduct to go forward. Pp. 20-23. 2. Since Bivens actions are a creation of federal law, the question whether respondent’s action survived her son’s death is a question of federal law. Only a uniform federal rule of survivorship will suffice to redress the constitutional deprivation here alleged and to protect against repetition of such conduct. Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U. S. 584, distinguished. Pp. 23-25. 581 F. 2d 669, affirmed. Brennan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ„ joined. Powell, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Stewart, J., joined, post, p. 25. Burger, C. J., post, p. 30, and Rehnquist, J., post, p. 31, filed dissenting opinions. Deputy Solicitor General Geller argued the cause for petitioners. On the briefs were Solicitor General McCree, Acting 16 OCTOBER TERM, 1979 Opinion of the Court 446U.S. Assistant Attorney General Daniel, Robert E. Kopp, and Barbara L. Herwig. Michael Deutsch argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Charles Hoffman* Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent brought this suit in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of the estate of her deceased son, Joseph Jones, Jr., alleging that he suffered personal injuries from which he died because the petitioners, federal prison officials, violated his due process, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment rights.1 Asserting jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a), she claimed compensatory and punitive damages for the constitutional violations. Two questions are presented for decision: (1) Is a remedy available directly under the Constitution, given that respondent’s allegations could also support a suit against the United States *Alvin J. Bronstein, Bruce J. Ennis, and William E. Hellerstein filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc., et al. as amid curiae urging affirmance. John B. Jones, Jr., Norman Redlich, William L. Robinson, Norman J. Chachkin, and Richard S. Kohn filed a brief for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as amicus curiae. 1 More specifically, respondent alleged that petitioners, being fully apprised of the gross inadequacy of medical facilities and staff at the Federal Correction Center in Terre Haute, Ind., and of the seriousness of Jones’ chronic asthmatic condition, nonetheless kept him in that facility against the advice of doctors, failed to give him competent medical attention for some eight hours after he had an asthmatic attack, administered contraindicated drugs which made his attack more severe, attempted to use a respirator known to be inoperative which further impeded his breathing, and delayed for too long a time his transfer to an outside hospital. The complaint further alleges that Jones’ death resulted from these acts and omissions, that petitioners were deliberately indifferent to Jones’ serious medical needs, and that their indifference was in part attributable to racial prejudice. CARLSON v. GREEN 17 14 Opinion of the Court under the Federal Tort Claims Act?2 And (2) if so, is survival of the cause of action governed by federal common law or by state statutes? I The District Court held that under Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97 (1976), the allegations set out in note 1, supra, pleaded a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against infliction of cruel and unusual punishment,8 giving rise to a cause of action for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971). The court recognized that the decedent could have maintained this action if he had survived, but dismissed the complaint because in its view the damages remedy as a matter of federal law was limited to that provided by Indiana’s survivorship and wrongful-death laws and, as the court construed those laws, the damages available to Jones’ estate failed to meet § 1331 (a)’s $10,000 jurisdictional-amount requirement. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed that an Eighth Amendment violation was pleaded under EsteUe and that a cause of action was stated under Bivens, but reversed the holding that § 1331 (a)’s jurisdictional-amount requirement was not met.4 Rather, the Court of Appeals held that 2 This question was presented in the petition for certiorari, but not in either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. However, respondent does not object to its decision by this Court. Though we do not normally decide issues not presented below, we are not precluded from doing so. E. g., Youakim n. Miller, 425 U. S. 231 (1976). Here, the issue is squarely presented and fully briefed. It is an important, recurring issue and is properly raised in another petition for certiorari being held pending dispo- sition of this case. See Loe v. Armistead, 582 F. 2d 1291 (CA4 1978), cert, pending sub nom. Moffitt v. Loe, No. 78-1260. We conclude that the interests of judicial administration will be served by addressing the issue on its merits. 8 Petitioners do not contest the determination that the allegations satisfy the standards set out in Estelle. *The relevant Indiana law provides that a personal injury claim does not survive where the acts complained of caused the victim’s death. Ind. 18 OCTOBER TERM, 1979 Opinion of the Court 446U.S. § 1331 (a) was satisfied because “whenever the relevant State survival statute would abate a Bwens-type action brought against defendants whose conduct results in death, the federal common law allows survival of the action.” 581 F. 2d 669, 675 (1978). The court reasoned that the Indiana law, if applied, would “subvert” “the policy of allowing complete vindication of constitutional rights” by making it “more advantageous for a tortfeasor to kill rather than to injure.” Id., at 674. We granted certiorari. 442 U. S. 940 (1979). We affirm. Bivens established that the victims of a constitutional violation by a federal agent have a right to recover damages against the official in federal court despite the absence of any statute conferring such a right. Such a cause of action may be defeated in a particular case, however, in two situations. The first is when defendants demonstrate “special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress.” 403 U. S., at 396; Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228, 245 (1979). The second is when defendants show that Congress has provided an alternative remedy which it explicitly declared to be a substitute for recovery directly Code §34-1-1-1 (1976). Indiana does provide a wrongful-death cause of action for the personal representative of one whose death is caused by an alleged wrongful act or omission. Damages may “includ[e], but [are] not limited to, reasonable medical, hospital, funeral and burial expenses, and lost earnings.” But if the decedent is not survived by a spouse, dependent child, or dependent next of kin, then the recovery is limited to expenses incurred in connection with the death. Ind. Code §34-1-1-2 (1976). The District Court read the complaint in this case as stating claims under both §§ 34-1-1-1 and 34-1-1-2. Accordingly, the court assumed that recovery on the claim was limited to expenses (all of which would be paid by the Federal Government) only because Jones died without a spouse or any dependents. The Court of Appeals read the complaint as stating only a survivorship claim on behalf of Jones under § 34r-l-l-l. Thus it assumed that the claim would have abated even if Jones had left dependents or a spouse. 581 F. 2d 669, 672, n. 4 (1978). Resolution of this conflict is irrelevant in light of our holding today. CARLSON v. GREEN 19 14 Opinion of the Court under the Constitution and viewed as equally effective. Bivens, supra, at 397; Davis v. Passman, supra, at 245-247. Neither situation obtains in this case. First, the case involves no special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress. Petitioners do not enjoy such independent status in our constitutional scheme as to suggest that judicially created remedies against them might be inappropriate. Davis v. Passman, supra, at 246. Moreover, even if requiring them to defend respondent’s suit might inhibit their efforts to perform their official duties, the qualified immunity accorded them under Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478 (1978), provides adequate protection. See Davis v. Passman, supra, at 246. Second, we have here no explicit congressional declaration that persons injured by federal officers’ violations of the Eighth Amendment may not recover money damages from the agents but must be remitted to another remedy, equally effective in the view of Congress. Petitioners point to nothing in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) or its legislative history to show that Congress meant to pre-empt a Bivens remedy or to create an equally effective remedy for constitutional violations.6 FTCA was enacted long before Bivens was decided, but when Congress amended FTCA in 1974 to create a cause of action against the United States for intentional torts committed by federal law enforcement officers, 28 U. S. C. § 2680 (h), the congressional comments accompanying 6 To satisfy this test, petitioners need not show that Congress recited any specific “magic words.” See the dissenting opinion of The Chief Justice, post, at 31, and n. 2. Instead, our inquiry at this step in the analysis is whether Congress has indicated that it intends the statutory remedy to replace, rather than to complement, the Bivens remedy. Where Congress decides to enact a statutory remedy which it views as fully adequate only in combination with the Bivens remedy, e. g., 28 U. S. C. §2680 (h), that congressional decision should be given effect by the courts. 20 OCTOBER TERM, 1979 Opinion of the Court 446U.S. that amendment made it crystal clear that Congress views FTCA and Bivens as parallel, complementary causes of action: “[A]fter the date of enactment of this measure, innocent individuals who are subjected to raids [like that in Bivens] will have a cause of action against the individual Federal agents and the Federal Government. Furthermore, this provision should be viewed as a counterpart to the Bivens case and its progenty [sic], in that it waives the defense of sovereign immunity so as to make the Government independently liable in damages for the same type of conduct that is alleged to have occurred in Bivens (and for which that case imposes liability upon the individual Government officials involved).” S. Rep. No. 93-588, p. 3 (1973) (emphasis supplied). In the absence of a contrary expression from Congress, § 2680 (h) thus contemplates that victims of the kind of intentional wrongdoing alleged in this complaint shall have an action under FTCA against the United States as well as a Bivens action against the individual officials alleged to have infringed their constitutional rights. This conclusion is buttressed by the significant fact that Congress follows the practice of explicitly stating when it means to make FTCA an exclusive remedy. See 38 U. S. C. §4116 (a), 42 U. S. C. § 233 (a), 42 U. S. C. § 2458a, 10 U. S. C. § 1089 (a), and 22 U. S. C. § 817 (a) (malpractice by certain Government, health personnel); 28 U. S. C. § 2679 (b) (operation of motor vehicles by federal employees); and 42 U. S. C. § 247b (k) (manufacturers of swine flu vaccine). Furthermore, Congress has not taken action on other bills that would expand the exclusivity of FTCA. See, e. g., S. 695, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979); H. R. 2659, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979); S. 3314, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978). Four additional factors, each suggesting that the Bivens remedy is more effective than the FTCA remedy, also support our conclusion that Congress did not intend to limit respond CARLSON v. GREEN 21 14 Opinion of the Court ent to an FTCA action. First, the Bivens remedy, in addition to compensating victims, serves a deterrent purpose. See Butz v. Economou, supra, at 505? Because the Bivens remedy is recoverable against individuals, it is a more effective deterrent than the FTCA remedy against the United States. It is almost axiomatic that the threat of damages has a deterrent effect,7 Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 442 (1976) (White, J., concurring in judgment), surely particularly so when the individual official faces personal financial liability. Petitioners argue that FTCA liability is a more effective deterrent because the individual employees responsible for the Government’s liability would risk loss of employment8 and because the Government would be forced to promulgate corrective policies. That argument suggests, however, that the superiors would not take the same actions when an employee is found personally liable for violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. The more reasonable assumption is that responsible superiors are motivated not only by concern for the public fisc but also by concern for the Government’s integrity. Second, our decisions, although not expressly addressing 6 Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983 serves similar purposes. See, e. g., Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U. S. 584, 590-591 (1978); Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 256 (1978); Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 242 (1972); M