網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[blocks in formation]

No. 91-8289. JACKSON ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 953 F. 2d 640.

No. 91-8290. BROWN v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 955 F. 2d 45.

No. 91-8298. CLARK V. UNITED STATES. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 958 F. 2d 1083.

No. 91-8299. RUIZ V. UNITED STATES. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 950 F. 2d 724.

No. 91–8326. BELL V. ALABAMA. Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 So. 2d 123.

No. 91–1710. TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. ET AL. v. WOOD, JUDGE, 127TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS (HENRY ET AL., REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST). Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Motion of Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

No. 91-7050. TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 947 F. 2d 1002.

JUSTICE WHITE, dissenting.

The Court of Appeals held that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD), 18 U. S. C. App. $ 2, Art. IV(e), did not compel dismissal of the indictment against petitioner, who was taken from state custody in Massachusetts to Federal District Court on a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for arraignment on an unrelated crime and returned to state custody the same day. The Courts of Appeals are divided as to the propriety of dismissal when technical violations of the IAD occur. Some courts take the First Circuit's view that such violations do not merit dismissal, see, e.g., United States v. Roy, 830 F. 2d 628, 636 (CA7 1987), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 1068 (1988); United States v. Roy, 771 F. 2d 54, 60 (CA2 1985), cert. denied, 475 U. S. 1110 (1986); Sassoon v. Stynchombe, 654 F. 2d 371, 374–375 (CA5 Unit B Aug. 1981); but others do not, see, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 562 F. 2d 232, 234 (CA3 1977) (en banc), cert. denied, 436 U. S. 949 (1978); United States v. Schrum, 638 F. 2d 214 (CA10 1981), aff'g 504 F. Supp. 23 (Kan. 1980). The Ninth Circuit has expressly recognized this conflict, and sided with the position taken

[blocks in formation]

by the First, Second, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 953 F. 2d 1167, 1171 (1992).

One of the Court's duties is to do its best to see that the federal law is not being applied differently in the various circuits around the country. The Court is surely not doing its best when it denies certiorari in this case, which presents an issue on which the Courts of Appeals are recurringly at odds. I would grant certiorari. No. 91–7914. ROMERO

ROMERO V. TEXAS.

TEXAS. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied. JUSTICE BLACKMUN would dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari as moot.

No. 91-8336. COLEMAN v. THOMPSON, WARDEN, ET AL. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. JUSTICE BLACKMUN would dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari as moot. Reported below: 966 F. 2d 1441.

No. 91–8341. BLACK V. TEXAS. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied. JUSTICE BLACKMUN would dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari as moot.

No. 91–8361. BLACK v. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. JUSTICE BLACKMUN would dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari as moot. Reported below: 962 F. 2d 394.

No. 91-8286. BAGGETT v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner to amend petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 954 F. 2d 674. Rehearing Denied

No. 91–6866. HENLEY v. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, 502 U. S. 1113;

No. 91–6994. MITCHELL v. RENFRO ET AL., 503 U. S. 910;

No. 91–7185. JEFFRESS v. PETERSON, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL., 503 U. S. 989;

No. 91–7360. YATES v. McMACKIN, WARDEN, 503 U. S. 990;
No. 91–7384. DOERR v. EMERSON, 503 U. S. 990;
No. 91–7416. MCCULLOUGH V. KERSH ET AL., 503 U. S. 991;

No. 91–7419. McCULLOUGH v. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, 503 U. S. 991;

[blocks in formation]

No. 91–7547. VAN WOUNDENBERG v. OKLAHOMA, 503 U. S. 993; and

No. 91–7793. GEURIN V. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ante, p. 924. Petitions for rehearing denied.

No. 91–370. PERRY V. SCHULZE, 502 U. S. 925. Petition for rehearing denied. JUSTICE THOMAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

JUNE 17, 1992 Dismissal Under Rule 46

No. 91–1717. DYNAMIC SEALS, INC., ET AL. V. SANDERS. Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46.

INDEX

ABDUCTION OF CRIMINAL DEFENDANT FROM FOREIGN COUN-

TRY. See Criminal Law, 1.

ABSTENTION. See Jurisdiction, 1.

ABUSE OF DISCRETION STANDARD. See In Forma Pauperis.

ADVERTISEMENTS. See Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS. See Constitutional Law, II.

AIRLINE DEREGULATION ACT OF 1978.

Pre-emption of state lawDeceptive airline advertising.—Airline De-
regulation Act of 1978 pre-empts States from prohibiting allegedly decep-
tive airline fare advertisements through enforcement of their general con-
sumer protection statutes. Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., p. 374.

ALABAMA. See Constitutional Law, III, 1.

ANTIALIENATION PROVISIONS. See Bankruptcy.

ANTIPSYCHOTIC MEDICATION. See Constitutional Law, IV, 2.

ANTITRUST ACTS.

1. Federal Trade Commission ActHorizontal price fixingState-
action immunity.Where FTC charged respondent title insurance
companies with horizontal price fixing in violation of Act, state-action
immunity was not available in Montana and Wisconsin under those States'
regulatory schemes, but Court of Appeals should have opportunity to
reexamine its immunity determinations with respect to Connecticut and
Arizona. FTC v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., p. 621.

2. Sherman ActStandard for summary judgment.—Petitioner did
not meet requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) for an
award of summary judgment against respondents on their $ 1 claim that
petitioner had unlawfully tied sale of service for its machines to sale of
parts, and respondents presented genuine issues for trial as to whether
petitioner had monopolized, or attempted to monopolize, service and parts
market in violation of $2. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Serv-
ices, Inc., p. 451.

995

« 上一頁繼續 »