Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Certiorari denied.

No. 83-5016. ADAMS v. FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Reported below: 422 So. 2d 953.

WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 709 F. 2d 1519.

No. 83-5017.

No. 83-5035.

tiorari denied.

No. 83-5037.

WARD v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer

ROBBINS v. MARSHALL, SUPERINTENDENT,

SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 711 F. 2d 1058.

No. 83-5067. EDGINGTON ET AL. v. NEW MEXICO.

Ct. App.

N. M. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 99 N. M. 715, 663 P. 2d 374.

No. 83-5087.

KOENIG v. SOUTH DAKOTA. Sup. Ct. S. D.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 333 N. W. 2d 800.

No. 83-5109.

LITT v. UNITED STATES.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer

tiorari denied. Reported below: 711 F. 2d 1060.

C. A. 3d

No. 83-5117. HILL v. ZIMMERMAN, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE AT HUNTINGDON, ET AL. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 709 F. 2d 232.

No. 83-5122. PERSINGER v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 709 F. 2d 1496.

No. 83-5162.

GUTIERREZ v. UNITED STATES.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 708 F. 2d 732.

No. 83-5168.

C. A. 11th Cir.

GRAHAM v. HOUSEMAN, ACTING DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, ET AL. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 9th Cir.

No. 83-5171. BROWN v. UNITED STATES. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 709 F. 2d 1514.

No. 83-5189. Certiorari denied. N. E. 2d 572.

DAMPIER v. ILLINOIS. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Reported below: 111 Ill. App. 3d 1159, 455

[blocks in formation]

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 679 F. 2d 889.

Certiorari denied.

No. 83-5334. ATTWELL v. HECKLER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 707 F. 2d 522.

No. 83-5340. BURNETTE V. PONTE, SUPERINTENDENT, MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 714 F. 2d 110.

No. 83-5342. MCADOO v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 83-5343. HIGGS v. KENTUCKY. Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.

No. 83-5344. WACHTER v. GREEN ET AL. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 83-5347. FAIR V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES. Cir. Ct. Mich., Ingham County. Certiorari denied.

No. 83-5348. SIROONIAN v. NEW YORK FOUNDLING HOSPITAL ET AL. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 92 App. Div. 2d 826, 460 N. Y. S. 2d 735.

No. 83-5358. KENT v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION. C. A. 2d Cir. O Certiorari denied. Reported below: 722 F. 2d 728.

No. 83-5360. APPLEBY v. MASSACHUSETTS. Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 389 Mass. 359, 450 N. E. 2d 1070.

No. 83-5363.
No. 83-5382.

No. 83-5383.

CAUBLE UNITED STATES;

WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES; and

GUION v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 714 F. 2d 134.

No. 83-5369. Certiorari denied.

DONNELL v. FREEMAN ET AL.

Sup. Ct. Mo.

[blocks in formation]

No. 83-5379. RONSON v. WALTERS, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS OF NEW YORK, ET AL. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 83-5392.

SERVIDIO v. UNITED STATES.

C. A. 3d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 716 F. 2d 893.

C. A. 4th

No. 83-5395. HARREN v. GARRISON, WARDEN.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 716 F. 2d 895.

No. 83-5401. MARSHALL V. OKLAHOMA. Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.

No. 83-5409. GROCE v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ET AL. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 83-5418. Certiorari denied.

No. 83-5422. Certiorari denied.

No. 83-5433. Certiorari denied.

No. 83-5479.

JOHNSON v. FOLTZ, WARDEN.
Reported below: 714 F. 2d 140.

C. A. 6th Cir.

EDWARDS v. DENTON ET AL.

C. A. 6th Cir.

Reported below: 714 F. 2d 139.

JAMESON v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 8th Cir.
Reported below: 707 F. 2d 978.

LAU TUNG LAM v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 714 F. 2d 209.

No. 83-5482. JOHNSON, AKA LATIF v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 714 F. 2d 134. No. 83-5492. GALLOP v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 714 F. 2d 155.

No. 83-5496. Certiorari denied.

No. 83-5506. Certiorari denied.

No. 82-1861.

SIMPSON v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 5th Cir.
Reported below: 709 F. 2d 903.

CLARK v. UNITED STATES. Ct. App. D. C.

MCCARREN ET AL. v. TOWN OF SPRINGFIELD, VERMONT, ET AL. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 722 F. 2d 728.

JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.

The town of Springfield, Vermont, wishes to construct and operate a hydroelectric generating facility on the neighboring Black

942

REHNQUIST, J., dissenting

River, and in June 1978, applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license to do so.

FERC has never ruled on this application. In January 1980, the town of Cavendish, Vermont, petitioned the Vermont Public Service Board for a declaratory judgment that Springfield's proposed project was subject to the provisions of Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 30, § 248 (Supp. 1983), which states that "[n]o company as defined [herein] . . . may begin site preparation for or construction of an electric generating facility within the state. . . unless the . . . board... [issues a certificate of public good]." App. to Pet. for Cert. 58a-59a.

Springfield appeared before the Public Service Board and contended that FERC's licensing jurisdiction pre-empted the authority of the Board, but after briefing and argument the Board ruled that it had jurisdiction under § 248 and prohibited Springfield from commencing site preparation until Springfield obtained a certificate of public good.

Although Vermont law afforded Springfield a right of appeal from the Board's decision to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Springfield did not avail itself of this right. Instead, it collaterally attacked the Board's ruling by an action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Board's ruling was null and void on pre-emptive grounds. The District Court, in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, canvassed the related issues raised by petitioners as a defense to its proceeding with the respondent's suit: res judicata, abstention, and the principles of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971). 549 F. Supp. 1134 (1982). Rejecting all of them, it ruled in favor of respondents on the merits of the preemption claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the District Court. 722 F. 2d 728 (1983). I would grant certiorari to review the District Court's refusal to accord any res judicata weight to the determination of the Vermont Public Service Board.

The District Court held that res judicata did not apply, because "the policy against permitting [the Board] to act beyond its jurisdiction outweighs the policy underlying the doctrine of res judicata." 549 F. Supp., at 1148. The District Court, relying on our decisions in Durfee v. Duke, 375 U. S. 106 (1963), and Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U. S. 433 (1940), in effect held that where the merits of the issue tendered by the federal plaintiff could result in

REHNQUIST, J., dissenting

464 U. S. a conclusion that the federal regulatory scheme ousted the state regulatory scheme, res judicata does not apply. I think this misreads the decisions upon which the District Court relied, and slights our recent decision in Insurance Corporation of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U. S. 694, 702, n. 9 (1982), where the Court said:

"A party that has had an opportunity to litigate the question of subject-matter jurisdiction may not, however, reopen that question in a collateral attack upon an adverse judgment. It has long been the rule that principles of res judicata apply to jurisdictional determinations-both subject matter and personal. See Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U. S. 371 (1940); Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U. S. 165 (1938)."

Kalb v. Feuerstein was a case in which Congress had confided exclusive jurisdiction for settlement of claims to the federal bankruptcy courts, and thereby ousted the state courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims. 308 U. S., at 440. But here, although the federal courts may have reached an entirely correct conclusion on the merits of the federal pre-emption issue, there is not the remotest suggestion that Congress by enactment of legislation authorizing federal licensing of hydroelectric projects intended to deprive the Vermont Public Service Board of authority to hear any claim relating to such projects that would otherwise be within the jurisdiction of the Board.

Although the fact that the adjudicating agency in this case was a state agency, rather than a state court, may make some difference as to the extent to which res judicata principles apply, it is by no means dispositive of the issue.* "Occasionally courts have used language to the effect that res judicata principles do not apply to administrative proceedings, but such language is certainly too broad." United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U. S. 394, 421-422 (1966) (footnotes omitted).

*This case may also present a question left open in Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564, 575–577 (1973): whether respondents were required by the line of cases beginning with Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), to pursue their avenues of appeal from the administrative ruling within the state court system. As this Court observed in Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592, 608 (1975), "[virtually all of the evils at which Younger is directed. . . inhere in federal intervention prior to completion of state appellate proceedings."

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »