No. 1322, Misc. BARTLAM v. NEW YORK. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Laurence Leff for respondent.

No. 1359, Misc. HOLLAND v. CICCONE, DIRECTOR, MEDICAL CENTER FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Mervyn Hamburg for respondent. Reported below: 386 F.2d 825.

No. 1360, Misc. WILLIAMS v. NELSON, WARDEN. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

No. 1370, Misc. MCEACHEN v. UNITED STATES. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Michael M. Kearney for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.

No. 1376, Misc. HERRINGTON v. NEW YORK. Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

No. 1388, Misc. BROWN v. FOGEL. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. William M. Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy and Morton Stavis for petitioner. Reported below: 387 F.2d 692.

No. 1219, Misc. WILKERSON v. UNITED STATES. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.

No. 1405, Misc. GALLEGOS ET AL. v. TURNER, WARDEN. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 386 F. 2d 440.

No. 1389, Misc. PEREZ v. CALIFORNIA. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

No. 1448, Misc. CARPENTER V. CROUSE, WARDEN. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 389 F.2d 53.

No. 1261, Misc. MAGRUDER v. UNITED STATES. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Edward Fenig for the United States.

Rehearing Denied.

No. 1095. GANNON V. NAVARRO, ante, p. 989;

No. 855, Misc. BENNETT v. MYERS, CORRECTIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, ante, p. 973;

No. 1069, Misc. WEILAND v. O'NEAL, ante, p. 984; and

No. 1238, Misc. SARGENT v. YEAGER, WARDEN, ET AL., ante, p. 994. Petitions for rehearing denied.

No. 324. NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. ET AL. V. MISSOURI STATE TAX COMMISSION ET AL., ante, p. 317. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

No. 1121. PETO v. MADISON SQUARE GARDEN CORP. ET AL., ante, p. 989. Petition for rehearing and other relief denied.

No. 1096, Misc. SHYVERS v. UNITED STATES, ante, p. 998. Petition for rehearing denied. MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

INDEX

ABUSE OF DISCRETION. See Constitutional Law, II, 2; V;
Evidence, 2; Jencks Act.

ACCRUED BENEFITS. See Attorney's Fee, 1; Social Security
Act.

ACTIONS. See Federal Employers' Liability Act, 2; Indians, 1;
Standing to Sue, 1.

ACTUAL MALICE. See Constitutional Law, IV, 2; Libel.

ADEQUACY OF RECORD. See Procedure, 2.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE. See also Constitutional Law,

VI, 3; Federal Maritime Commission; Federal Power Com-
mission; Judicial Review, 2-4; Labor; Procedure, 1, 8; Public
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935; Shipping Act, 1916;
Standing to Sue, 2; Tennessee Valley Authority.

Steamship conferences-Travel agents-Tying rule.-There was no
showing that tying rule was necessary to serve the stability of the
steamship conference or that it served any other legitimate purpose,
and the FMC was therefore warranted in concluding that the
absolute prohibition against agents dealing with nonconference lines
was unjustified. FMC v. Svenska Amerika Linien, p. 238.

AD VALOREM TAXES. See Constitutional Law, I; Evidence, 1;
Taxes, 2.

AGE. See Constitutional Law, II, 4; VI, 1; VII; Obscenity, 1-3.
AGENTS. See Administrative Procedure; Judicial Review, 2–3;
Labor; Procedure, 1; Shipping Act, 1916.

AGREEMENTS. See Federal Maritime Commission.

ALABAMA. See Constitutional Law, III, 1.

ALLOTMENTS. See Indians, 1; Standing to Sue, 1.

ALLOWANCES. See Robinson-Patman Act.

ALL WRITS ACT. See Jurisdiction, 1; Stockholders.

ANTI-PICKETING LAW. See Constitutional Law, VI, 2; Mis-
sissippi Anti-Picketing Law; Procedure, 9.

1047

ANTITRUST ACTS. See also Bank Merger Act of 1966; Judicial
Review, 1; Robinson-Patman Act.

1. Sherman Act-Newspaper price-Combination to fix maximum
price. The uncontroverted facts showed a combination within § 1
of the Act to force petitioner, an independent newspaper carrier, to
conform to respondent's advertised retail price. Albrecht v. Herald
Co., p. 145.

2. Sherman Act-Price fixing-Maximum price. Since fixing max-
imum as well as minimum resale prices by agreement or combination
is a per se violation of § 1 of the Act, the Court of Appeals erred
in holding that there was no restraint of trade. Albrecht v. Herald
Co., p. 145.

-

3. Sherman Act — Price-fixing scheme· Exclusive territories. —
Court of Appeals erred in assuming that it was necessary to permit
respondent newspaper to impose price ceiling to prevent gouging
made possible by exclusive territories, for neither the existence of
exclusive territories nor the dealers' resultant economic power was
in issue; and the court was not entitled to assume that the exclusive
rights granted by respondent were valid under § 1 of the Act, either
alone or in conjunction with a price-fixing scheme. Albrecht v.
Herald Co., p..145.

ANTITRUST IMMUNITY. See Administrative Procedure; Judi-
cial Review, 2; Procedure, 1; Shipping Act, 1916.
APPEALS. See Constitutional Law, IV, 1; Jurisdiction, 3.
APPLICATION FOR LOAN. See False Claims Act.

APPORTIONMENT. See Constitutional Law, III, 2.

AREA RATE PROCEEDINGS. See Federal Power Commission;
Procedure, 8.

ASSAULT. See Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1.

ASSESSMENTS. See Constitutional Law, I; Evidence, 1; Federal
Maritime Commission; Taxes, 2.

ASSOCIATIONAL FREEDOM. See Constitutional Law, IV, 1;
Jurisdiction, 3.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LIST. See Constitutional Law, IV,
Jurisdiction, 3.

1:

ATTORNEYS. See also Confessions; Constitutional Law, II, 1:
Federal-State Relations, 1; Procedure, 5.

Disbarment proceedings-Due process-Notice of charges.-The
lack of notice to petitioner, member of Ohio bar, prior to time he
and his "investigator" testified, that his employment of "investigator"
would be considered disbarment offense deprived petitioner of pro-
cedural due process. In re Ruffalo, p. 544.

ATTORNEY'S FEE. See also Civil Rights Act of 1964, 2;
Social Security Act.

1. Accrued benefits-Social Security Act.-Provision in § 206
(b)(1) of the Act limiting attorney's fee to "25 percent of the total
of the past-due benefits to which claimant is entitled by reason of
such judgment," does not restrict fee to the percentage of the accrued
benefits awarded the permanently disabled claimant, but includes as
well the benefits accrued to his dependents by virtue of the dis-
ability. Hopkins v. Cohen, p. 530.

2. Civil Rights Act of 1964-Injunctions-Defense not in good
faith. One who succeeds in obtaining an injunction under Title II
of the Act should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee under § 204 (b)
unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust, and
should not be limited, as the Court of Appeals held, to an award of
counsel fees only if the defenses advanced were "for purposes of
delay and not in good faith." Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises,
p. 400.

AUTOMATION. See Federal Maritime Commission.

AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT. See Federal Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure; Procedure, 10.

AUTOMOBILES. See Constitutional Law, VIII; Federal Maritime
Commission.

AWARDS. See Federal Employers' Liability Act, 2; Procedure, 7.
BANK MERGER ACT OF 1966. See also Judicial Review, 1.

1. Antitrust Acts-Convenience and needs of community-Pro-
cedure. The Bank Merger Act requires de novo inquiry by the
district courts into the validity of bank mergers to determine
whether the merger offends the antitrust laws, and, if it does,
whether the banks have established that the merger is justified by
benefits to the "convenience and needs of the community." United
States v. Third Nat. Bank, p. 171.

2. Clayton Act-Competition-Antitrust standard.-The Bank
Merger Act, which adopted the language of § 7 of the Clayton Act,
"substantially to lessen competition," did not provide a different
antitrust standard for bank cases, and therefore the District Court
applied an erroneous Clayton Act standard to the merger. United
States v. Third Nat. Bank, p. 171.

3. Convenience and needs of community-Anticompetitive ef-
fects Public interest.-The lower court misapprehended the meaning
of the phrase "convenience and needs of the community," and mis-
understood the weight to be given the relevant factors in determin-
ing whether the anticompetitive effects are "clearly outweighed in
the public interest" by the effects on the convenience and needs of