ORGANIZED RELIGIOUS GROUPS. See Constitutional Law,
IV; Selective Service Act.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS.
dicial Review; Relief.
PARTNERSHIPS. See Taxes.
See Extraordinary Remedies; Ju-
PERSONAL APPEARANCES. See Selective Service Regulations.
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI. See Constitutional Law, V;
Jurisdiction, 2.
PICKETING. See Federal-State Relations; Injunctions, 1-2;
Jurisdiction, 1; Labor; Norris-LaGuardia Act; Procedure, 7, 9.
POLICEMEN. See Burden of Proof, 1-2; Constitutional Law,
III, 1-2.
PREJUDICIAL DELAY. See Constitutional Law, VII, 2; Pro-
cedure, 8.
PRIMA FACIE SHOWING. See Selective Service Regulations.
PRISONERS. See Constitutional Law, VII, 2; Procedure, 8.
PROCEDURE. See also Admiralty; Appeals; Burden of Proof,
1-2; Constitutional Law, I-II; III, 1–2; V-VII; Extraordinary
Remedies; Federal-State Relations; Injunctions, 1-2; Judicial
Review; Juries; Jurisdiction, 1-2; Labor; Libel; National
Labor Relations Board; Norris-LaGuardia Act; Relief; Selec-
tive Service Regulations; Sentences.
1. Direct appeal to Supreme Court-Order denying declaratory
judgment. An order granting or denying only a declaratory judg-
ment may not be appealed to Supreme Court under 28 U. S. C.
§ 1253, which permits "an appeal to the Supreme Court from an
order granting or denying . . . an interlocutory or permanent in-
junction." Mitchell v. Donovan, p. 427.
2. Disparity of welfare payments-Challenge on equal protection
and statutory grounds — Preliminary injunction.- District Court,
which granted preliminary injunction on basis of violation of equal
protection in disparate welfare payments, should have opportunity
to pass on propriety of granting interim relief on basis of appellees'
statutory claims, in light of subsequently decided case of Rosado v.
Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, or, if question is reached, continuing the
injunction in light of Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471. Wyman
v. Rothstein, p. 275.
3. Harmless error-Murder charge-Conviction of voluntary man-
slaughter. In view of hazard of conviction of murder in the
second trial and the possible effect upon the jury of the murder
charge, the second jeopardy was not harmless error. The issue
whether petitioner can be retried for voluntary manslaughter under
Georgia law is to be resolved on remand. Price v. Georgia, p. 323.
4. Increased sentence on retrial-Due process-Writ of certiorari
dismissed. Following grant of certiorari here, where petitioner was
given increased sentence after retrial, to consider retroactivity of
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, facts emerged indicating
that the due process standards of that case were not violated here,
and the writ is dismissed. Moon v. Maryland,
5. NLRB order - Enforcement proceedings-Intervening valid
representation election.-Where NLRB order sets aside representa-
tion election because of employer's unfair labor practices and pro-
scribes such conduct in the future, judicial proceedings to enforce
the order are not rendered moot by an intervening valid election.
NLRB v. Raytheon Co., p. 25.
6. Notice and hearing-Reduction of welfare benefits.-District
Court should consider bearing of Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254,
and Wheeler v. Montgomery, 397 U. S. 280, on question of entitle-
ment of welfare recipients to notice and hearing before reduction
of benefits. Daniel v. Goliday, p. 73.
7. Removal procedure-State courts-Labor disputes.-Congress
did not intend that the removal procedure, as applied to suits
under $301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act initially
brought in state courts and removed to federal courts, be used
to foreclose completely injunctive and other remedies otherwise
available in state courts. Boys Markets v. Clerks Union, p. 235.
8. Speedy trial-State criminal trial of federal prisoner-Seven-
year delay-On record here where petitioner, a federal prisoner,
was at all times available to the State for trial on state criminal
charge, there was no valid excuse for the seven-year prejudicial
delay in bringing him to trial, and the judgment against him must
be vacated by the trial court. Dickey v. Florida, p. 30.
9. Stare decisis-Congressional silence-Re-examination of deci-
sion.-Doctrine of stare decisis, "a principle of policy and not a
mechanical formula," does not bar re-examination of Sinclair Re-
fining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195, nor does the mere silence of
Congress since Sinclair was decided foreclose reconsideration of that
decision. Boys Markets v. Clerks Union, p. 235.
PROMPT TRIALS. See Constitutional Law, VII, 2; Procedure, 8.
PROOF. See Burden of Proof, 1-2; Constitutional Law, III, 1-2.
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. See Constitutional Law, II; Procedure,
2, 6.
PUBLICATIONS. See Constitutional Law, VI; Libel.
PUBLIC EATING PLACES. See Burden of Proof, 1-2; Con-
stitutional Law, III, 1-2.
PUBLIC FIGURES. See Constitutional Law, VI; Libel.
PUBLIC ISSUES. See Constitutional Law, VI; Libel.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS. See Constitutional Law, VI; Libel.
PUBLISHERS. See Constitutional Law, VI; Libel.
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. See Burden of Proof, 1-2; Con-
stitutional Law, III, 1–2.
RAILROADS. See Federal-State Relations; Injunctions, 2;
Jurisdiction, 1.
RAILWAY LABOR ACT. See Federal-State Relations; Injunc-
tions, 2; Jurisdiction, 1.
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER. See Constitutional Law, VI;
See Constitutional Law, VI; Libel.
RECLASSIFICATIONS. See Selective Service Regulations.
REDUCTION OF BENEFITS. See Constitutional Law, II; Pro-
cedure, 6.
RE-EXAMINATION OF DECISION. See Injunctions, 1; Labor;
Norris-LaGuardia Act; Procedure, 7, 9.
REFUSAL OF SERVICE. See Burden of Proof, 1-2; Constitu-
tional Law, III, 1–2.
REGISTRY OF SHIPS. See Jones Act.
REGULATIONS. See Selective Service Regulations.
RELIEF. See also Burden of Proof, 1-2; Constitutional Law,
III, 1-2; Extraordinary Remedies; Federal-State Relations;
Injunctions, 2; Judicial Review; Jurisdiction, 1.
Action by Judicial Council-Challenge by District Judge-Su-
preme Court.-Whether or not Council's action concerning assign-
ment of cases is reviewable here, petitioner District Judge, in
present posture of case, is not entitled to extraordinary remedy
that he seeks since, after expressly acquiescing in the division of
cases in the district, following the Council's later order, he has
not sought relief either from the Council or other tribunal, and
such relief may yet be open. Chandler v. Judicial Council, p. 74.
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. See Constitutional Law, IV; Selective
Service Act; Selective Service Regulations.
RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES. See Constitutional Law, VII, 1; Juries.
REMEDIES. See Admiralty; Extraordinary Remedies; Injunc-
tions, 1; Judicial Review; Labor; Norris-LaGuardia Act;
Procedure, 7, 9; Relief.
REMOVAL. See Injunctions, 1; Labor; Norris-LaGuardia Act;
Procedure, 7, 9.
REOPENING CLASSIFICATIONS. See Selective Service Regu-
lations.
REPORTING OF NEWS. See Constitutional Law, VI; Libel.
REPRESENTATION ELECTIONS. See National Labor Relations
Board; Procedure, 5.
RESENTENCES. See Procedure, 4; Sentences.
RESERVES FOR BAD DEBTS. See Taxes.
RESIDENTS. See Constitutional Law, III, 3; Jones Act; Voting.
RESTAURANTS. See Burden of Proof, 1-2; Constitutional Law,
III, 1-2.
See Constitutional Law, I; Procedure, 3-4;
RETROACTIVITY. See Procedure, 4; Sentences.
REVOCATION OF ORDERS. See Extraordinary Remedies; Ju-
dicial Review; Relief.
RIGHT TO VOTE. See Constitutional Law, III, 3; Voting.
RULES. See Constitutional Law, V; Jurisdiction, 2.
SCHOOL SITES. See Constitutional Law, VI; Libel.
SCRUPLES AGAINST DEATH PENALTY. See Constitutional
Law, VII, 1; Juries.
SECONDARY BOYCOTTS.
junctions, 2; Jurisdiction, 1.
See Federal-State Relations; In-
SEGREGATION. See Burden of Proof, 1-2; Constitutional Law,
III, 1-2.
SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT. See also Constitutional Law, IV;
Selective Service Regulations.
Conscientious objector-Religious beliefs.-Petitioner's conviction
for refusal to submit to induction despite his claim for conscientious
objector status, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which concluded
that his beliefs were not sufficiently "religious" to meet the terms
of 86 (j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, is
reversed. Welsh v. United States, p. 333.
SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS.
Reopening classification-Conscientious objector-Administrative
appeal. Where registrant makes nonfrivolous allegations of facts
not previously considered by his draft board, that, if true, would
be sufficient to warrant granting reclassification, board must reopen
the classification, unless truth of new allegations is conclusively
refuted by other reliable information in registrant's file, thus afford-
ing registrant an administrative appeal from an adverse determina-
tion on the merits. Mulloy v. United States,
p. 410.
SELF-HELP. See Federal-State Relations; Injunctions, 2; Juris-
diction, 1.
SELF-INCRIMINATION. See Constitutional Law, VII, 1; Juries.
SENTENCE OF DEATH. See Constitutional Law, VII, 1; Juries.
SENTENCES. See also Procedure, 4.
Increased sentence on retrial-Due process-Writ of certiorari
dismissed. Following grant of certiorari here, where petitioner was
given increased sentence after retrial, to consider retroactivity of
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, facts emerged indicating
that the due process standards of that case were not violated here,
and the writ is dismissed. Moon v. Maryland, p. 319.
SENTENCING STANDARDS. See Constitutional Law, VII, 1;
Juries.
SHIPS. See Admiralty; Jones Act.
SIXTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law, VII; Juries;
Procedure, 8.
SKITS. See Constitutional Law, V; Jurisdiction, 2.
SLANDER. See Constitutional Law, VI; Libel.
SPEEDY TRIAL. See Constitutional Law, VII, 2; Procedure, 8.
STANDARDS. See Constitutional Law, VII, 1; Juries.
STARE DECISIS. See Admiralty; Procedure, 9.
|