KAISER V. NEW YORK, ante, p. 280;
No. 109. SNYDER V. HARRIS ET AL., ante, p. 332; No. 199. HARRIS, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE (WALKER, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST) v. NELSON, WARDEN, ante, p. 286;
No. 940. KENNEY V. AMERICAN CAN Co., 393 U. S. 1119;
No. 1005. HOWE v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., ante, p. 919;
No. 1012. NATIONAL SPONGE CUSHION Co., INC. v. ALLEN INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., ante, p. 920;
No. 1042. GOULD ET UX. v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE CO., INC., ET AL., ante, p. 943;
No. 1087. ASHTON V. UNITED STATES, ante, p. 960; No. 524, Misc. CASSASA v. CALIFORNIA, 393 U. S. 1066;
No. 857, Misc. BUSH v. UNITED STATES, 393 U. S. 532; and
No. 1457, Misc. GLASS v. UNITED STATES, ante, p. 939. Petitions for rehearing denied.
No. 5, Misc. SANCHEZ v. CALIFORNIA. Sup. Ct. Cal. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court. Charles F. Prael for petitioner. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Edward P. O'Brien and Karl S. Mayer, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent. Reported below: 65 Cal. 2d 814, 423 P. 2d 800. [For earlier order herein,
ABSENTEE BALLOTS. See Constitutional Law, III, 1.
ABSOLUTE EQUALITY. See Constitutional Law, I, 1-3; Elec-
tions, 1.
ACCRETION. See Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 3.
ACTIONS. See Admiralty; Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act.
ADJUDICATORY POWER. See National Labor Relations Board.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE. See Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. See National Labor
Relations Board.
ADMINISTRATRIX. See Admiralty; Longshoremen's and
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.
ADMIRALTY. See also Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act.
Death of longshoreman-Shipowner's duty of due care-Direct
tort action.-Federal maritime law imposes on shipowner duty to
stevedoring contractor of due care under the circumstances and
recognizes a direct tort action against shipowner to recover amount
of compensation payments occasioned by shipowner's negligence;
and direct action otherwise than by tort by the stevedoring con-
tractor against the shipowner may also be available. Marine
Terminals v. Shipping Co., p. 404.
ADMISSIBILITY. See Constitutional Law, VI, 8; Evidence, 1.
ADMISSIONS. See Constitutional Law, XI.
ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS. See Procedure, 12.
AGGREGATION OF CLAIMS. See Jurisdiction, 3.
AGREEMENT NOT TO COMPETE. See Antitrust Acts, 2, 6.
AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN. See
Constitutional Law, III, 4; IV; X.
ALABAMA. See Constitutional Law, III, 2; V, 3-4; XII, 2;
Contempt; Elections, 2; Grand Juries; Juries; Procedure, 3;
Statutory Construction; Voting Rights Act of 1965.
ALIENAGE OF PARTIES. See Jurisdiction, 2.
ALL WRITS ACT. See Habeas Corpus, 1-2; Procedure, 6.
ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS. See Constitutional Law, VII, 1;
Jurisdiction, 1.
AMBULATORY COASTLINE. See Judicial Review; Submerged
Lands Act of 1953, 1-3.
AMERICAN FLAGS. See Constitutional Law, VII, 1; Juris-
diction, 1.
ANONYMOUS HANDBILLS. See Constitutional Law, VIII;
Declaratory Judgments, 1-2.
ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY DISCS. See Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act.
CONDUCT. See Constitutional Law, V, 2;
ANTITRUST ACTS. See also Constitutional Law, IX; Pro-
cedure, 1.
1. Private antitrust action-Monopolization of bronze grave
markers Summary judgment.-The alleged conspiracy had not been
conclusively disproved by pretrial discovery and there remained
material issues of fact which could only be resolved by a jury after
a plenary trial. "[S]ummary procedures should be used sparingly
in complex antitrust litigation where motive and intent play leading
roles . . . ." Norfolk Monument v. Woodlawn, p. 700.
2. Sherman Act-Newspapers Joint operating agreement.-The
violations of § 1 of the Act are plain, as price fixing is illegal per se,
pooling of profits pursuant to an inflexible ratio reduces incentives
to compete, and the agreement not to engage in any other publishing
business in Pima County is a division of fields proscribed by the
Act. Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, p. 131.
3. Sherman Act-Tying arrangements-Credit.-The arrangement
here, where credit is provided by one corporation on condition that
a product be purchased from another corporation, and where the
borrower contracts to obtain a large sum beyond that needed to
pay seller for the products purchased, is readily distinguished from
sale of a single product on credit by an individual seller. Where
credit is source of tying leverage used to restrain competition, it is
treated no differently under the antitrust laws from other goods
and services. Fortner Enterprises v. U. S. Steel, p. 495.
4. Sherman Act-Tying arrangements-Illegality per se.-The
District Court incorrectly assumed that the standards in Northern
ANTITRUST ACTS-Continued.
Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, for determining the
illegality per se of a tying agreement had to be met before petitioner
could prevail on the merits. In any event the facts raised by
petitioner, if proved at trial, make the per se doctrine applicable to
the tying arrangement here. Fortner Enterprises v. U. S. Steel,
p. 495.
5. Sherman Act-Tying arrangements-Volume of commerce.—
Volume of commerce allegedly foreclosed was substantial when
measured as it should be, not by the portion of the total accounted
for by petitioner's contracts, but by the total volume of sales tied
by respondents' challenged sales policy. Fortner Enterprises v.
U. S. Steel, p. 495.
6. Sherman and Clayton Acts-Failing company doctrine.-Re-
quirements of failing company doctrine were not met, as there was
no evidence that the Citizen's owners were thinking of liquidating or
selling the company or that the joint operating agreement was the
last straw at which the company grasped; it was not established
that the acquiring company was the only available purchaser; and
the prospects of reorganization through receivership or through
Chapter X or XI of the Bankruptcy Act were neither dim nor
nonexistent. Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, p. 131.
APPEALS. See Constitutional Law, VII, 1; Jurisdiction, 1; Post-
Conviction Relief; Procedure, 5, 9-10.
APPORTIONMENT. See Constitutional Law, I, 1-3; Elections, 1.
ARCHIPELAGOES. See Judicial Review; Submerged Lands Act
of 1953, 1-2.
ARIZONA. See Antitrust Acts, 2, 6; Constitutional Law, IX.
ARRESTS. See Constitutional Law, VI, 4-5; Habeas Corpus,
1-2; Procedure, 6.
ASSIGNMENTS. See Jurisdiction, 2.
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION. See Taxes, 2.
ATTORNEYS. See Constitutional Law, II, 2; VI, 6; XI; XII, 1;
Evidence, 3; Procedure, 7, 11; Trials.
BALLOTS. See Constitutional Law, III, 2; Contempt; Elections,
2; Voting Rights Act of 1965.
BANKRUPTCY ACT. See Antitrust Acts, 2, 6.
BASART DOCTRINE. See Intervention; Procedure, 2.
BASELINES. See Judicial Review; Submerged Lands Act of
1953, 1-2.
|