Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute Archives logo

Vol. II, No. 4
July, 1957
$5.00 per year

Search in this volume

Case Number: 

Enter a specific case number or use * as wildcard, e.g., 303.15, 303.*

Case Title: 

Enter keywords from the title of a case, e.g., carpenters union

Case Description: 

Enter keywords from the description of a case, e.g., segregation school

The DOCKET is published 4 times each year, October to June, by the National Committee on Constitutional Rights and Liberties, Osmond K. Fraenkel, chairman, Ann Fagan Ginger, editor.

Concluded cases described in Vol II, Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will not be mentioned in this or future issues except to give official citations of decisions. Pending cases in which there has been no change in status since the last description are listed below and marked with an *. Pending cases in which changes have occurred since the last issue will show the page references of the previous descriptions.


SPEECH AND PRESS (10-99) See also Association (200-299)
Law review article:

Henry S. Drinker, Some observations on the Four Freedoms of the First Amendment, 37 Boston Univ. L. Rev. 1-69 (Winter 1957).

10. Licensing
11. Meetings
12. Motion Pictures

12.1. Times Film Corp. v. Chicago. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 1. May 21: CA 7 affirmed DC decision prohibiting showing of "The Game of Love" under state statute. Pl. preparing petition for certiorari.
12.2. Kingsley Intl. Pictures Corp. v. N. Y. Bd. of Regents. (N.Y. App. Div., 3d Dept.)*
12.3. In re Application of Excelsior Pictures Corp. v. Regents of University of New York State. (N.Y. Ct. of App.)
12.5. California v. Stewart, et al. (Los Angeles Super. Ct., App. Dept., #CR A 3519.) Def. convicted of violating Los Angeles film censorship ordinance for distributing "Monika", Swedish film. Feb., 1957: Ct. reversed conviction, held ordinance unconstitutional, as "so sweeping that [they] embrace matters that may not be prohibited, and the qualifying words 'in such manner as to offend public morals' are too lacking in definiteness to satisfy the requirements of due process * * *"

Melvin J. Klarin, Esq., and Jerome D. Slavenick, Esq., both of Los Angeles.

13. Peddlers
14. Miscellaneous

14.1. Sunshine Book Co., et al. v. McCaffrey, NYC Comm'r of Licenses, et ano. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div., 1st Dept.)*
20. Administrative Restrictions
21. Customs

21.1. U. S. v. 31 Photographs, et al. (SD NY, #AD 189 50.)*
22. Post Office
23. Miscellaneous

23.1. Daily Worker v. Moysey (CA 2.)*
23.3. Popular Library, et al. v. Pros. Atty. Hamm. (ED Mich., N. Div., Civ. #16075.) For facts, see II DOCKET 32. May 14: Fed. Judge Thornton issued consent decree granting permanent injunction.
23.4. HMH Publishing Co., Inc. v. Pros. Atty. Hamm. (ED Mich., N. Div., Civ. #16095.) For facts, see II DOCKET 32. June 10: Fed. Judge Lederle issued consent decree granting permanent injunction.
23.5. Random House and Bantam Books v. Detroit Police Commr. Piggins. (Wayne Co. Cir. Ct., Chanc. #555-684, 685.) For facts, see II DOCKET 49. Application for leave to appeal to Mich. Sup. Ct. pending.
- 66 -

23.6. Sapriel, et ano. v. Beverly Hills, et al. (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Co., #671322.)*
30. Economic Restrictions

30.1. Independent Productions Corp. and I.P.C. Distributors, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc., et al. (SD NY, Civ. #110-304.)*
40. Contempt
41. Federal Courts
42. State Courts

42.1. In Matter of Nies. (Sup. Ct. Colo., #18034.)*
43. Other agencies
50. Criminal Sanctions
51. Disorderly conduct
52. Obscenity (see also 12)
Law review article:

Godfrey P. Schmidt, A justification of statutes barring pornography from the mails, 26 Fordham L. Rev. 70-97 (Spring 1957).

52.2. Alberts v. California. (U.S.S.C., #61.) For facts, see II DOCKET 2. June 24: judgment affirmed, Brennan, J. (Douglas and Black, Jj. dissenting.) Ct.: "We hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press * * * implicit in the history of the First Amdt. is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance * * *" Douglas, J.: "I would give the broad sweep of the First Amdt. full support. I have the same confidence in the ability of our people to reject noxious literature as I have in their capacity to sort out the true from the false in theology, economics, politics, or any other field * * *."
52.3. Roth v. U. S. (U.S.S.C., #582.) For facts, see II DOCKET 50. June 24: judgment affirmed, Brennan J. (Douglas, Black and Harlan, Jj. dissenting.) Joint opinions with Alberts, 52.2.
52.5. Kingsley Books, Inc., et al. v. Brown. (U.S.S.C., #107.) (1 NY 2d 177, 151 NYS 2d 639, 134 NE 2d 461.) Appee.-NYC Corp. Counsel secured injunction against sale of Pets'. books on ground of obscenity. NY Ct of App upheld injunction under Ch. 702, Sec. 2Z-a, Code Crim. Proc., held statute not unconstitutional as prior restraint on freedom of press. June 24: U.S.S.C. affirmed judgment, Frankfurter, J. (Dissenting opinions by Warren, C.J., Douglas, Black, Brennan, Jj.)

Emanuel Redfield, Esq., 60 Wall St., NYC.

52.6. Adams Newark Theatre Co. v. Newark. (U.S.S.C., #835.) June 24: U.S.S.C. upheld constitutionality of Newark's antistrip tease ordinancy, affirmed decision of N.J. Sup. Ct. affirming conviction of Pet. (Douglas and Black, Jj. dissenting.)
54. Sedition (see also 241-4)

54.1. U. S. v. Powell, et al. (ND Calif., S. Div., #35065.) For facts, see II DOCKET 2, 32, 50. Jy. 3: argument on motion asking Ct. to make order requesting Chinese judicial authorities to give "judicial assistance", under Chinese civil law, in obtaining from Chinese witnesses statements of their proposed testimony.
55. Picketing

55.1. People of New York v. Carcel and Collazo. (N.Y. Ct. of Spec. Sess., App. Part.)*
56. "Corrupt Practices"

56.1. U. S. v. UAW-CIO. (DC Mich.)*
57. Miscellaneous

57.1. People of New York ex rel. Hearn v. Muste, et al. (Spec. Sess., App. Term, NY Co.)*
57.2. People of New York v. Peck, et al. (NYC Magis. Ct.)*
57.3. People of New York v. Panagakos. (NY Ct. of App.)*
57.4. People of California v. Aykens and Wallace. (App. Dept., Super. Ct., San Mateo.)*
57.5. U. S. v. Roumanian-American Pub. Co. (DC DC.)*
60. Civil Sanctions
61. Defamation
62. Injunctions in labor disputes
63. Other injunctions
Law review article:

Arthur L. Harding, Religious liberty: the source of freedom? 11 Southwestern L. Jour. 169-83.

110. Separation of Church and State

110.1. In re Application of Lewis and Klein v. N. Y. State Commr. of Education. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany.)*
110.4. Squires, et al. v. City of Augusta, et al. (Super. Ct. Me., Kennebec Co., #2685.) For facts, see II DOCKET 51. May 3: Ct. issued temporary injunction against expenditure of City funds for transportation of children to parochial schools because state laws permit only expenditures for public schools.
120. Pacifists and Conscientious Objectors

120.2. Hanauer, et ano. v. Elkins, Pres., U. of Md. (Cir. Ct., Prince Georges Co., Md., #8584—Law.) Pl.-students filed petition for writ of mandamus directing Def. and Bd. of Regents of land grant college to enroll them without requiring them to register for Air Force ROTC. Issue: whether Def's. requirement imposes unconstitutional religious tests on Pls.-conscientious objectors as condition for use of University facilities. Pending.

Oliver E. Stone, Esq., 1025 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, D.C.

- 67 -

130. Denial of Tax Exemptions

130.1. People's Church of San Fernando Valley Inc. v. County of Los Angeles. (Calif. Sup. Ct.) and
130.2. First Methodist Church of San Leandro v. Horstmann, et al. (Calif. Sup. Ct.) and
130.3. First Unitarian Church of Berkeley v. Horstmann, et al. (Calif. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see II DOCKET 3. Apr. 24: Calif. Sup. Ct. (4-3) upheld constitutionality of loyalty oath requirement for churches seeking property tax exemptions. Carter, J., dissenting: "It should be emphatically stated and understood that not one of the churches * * * involved has been so much as accused of subversive activities. But through their refusal to take the oath, they are penalized in advance for something they have not done, and will, in all probability, never do. Just why charitable institutions are singled out as presenting the greatest danger to this country in time of peace or war is not made clear in the majority opinion * * *." Appeal to U.S.S.C. pending.
130.4. American Unitarian Assn., et al. v. County of Santa Clara, et al. (Santa Clara Co. Super. Ct., Calif.)*
130.5. Fellowship of Humanity v. Co. of Alameda and City of Oakland. (Super. Ct., Alameda Co., #25007 4.) For facts, see II DOCKET 3. June 27: resubmitted on additional briefs requested by Court on constitutionality of church tax exemption.
130.6. Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia. (CA DC, #13646.)*
140. Miscellaneous Restrictions

140.1. Rev. Dawkins v. Station KGFJ. (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County.)*
ASSOCIATION: As affecting the organization itself (200-239)
200. Privileges
201. Meetings
202. Tax exemption

202.1. Communist Party v. Moysey. (U.S. Tax Ct.)*
202.2. Green v. Javits, et al. (N.Y. Spec. Sess., App. Term.) For facts, see II DOCKET 4. May 24: Ct. held Am. Comm. for Protection of Foreign Born to be charity under Art. 10-A. Stay of examination of Pet. granted pending appeal, filed June 6.
202.2a. New York ex rel. Lefkowitz v. Green, et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) July: Ct. granted Atty. Genl. temporary injunction against Am. Comm. for Protection of Foreign Born soliciting and disbursing any funds for any purpose. Motion for permanent injunction and for appointment of receiver pending.

Gloria Agrin and Blanch Freedman, Esqs., 320 Broadway, NYC.

203. N.L.R.B. Certification

203.3. U. S. v. Pezzati, et al. (DC Colo.)*

And see West, 291.20.

204. Continued existence

204.1. Alabama ex rel. Atty. Genl. Patterson v. N.A.A.C.P. (U.S.S.C., #846.) For facts, see II DOCKET 4, 33. Petition for certiorari granted.
204.2. Texas v. N.A.A.C.P., a Corp., and N.A.A.P. Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (6th Sup. Jud. Dist. Tex.) For facts, see II DOCKET 4, 34, 51. May 8: Ct. entered permanent injunction against Defs. Appeal pending.
204.3. Williams, Ga. Revenue Commr. v. N.A.A.C.P., et al. (Fulton Super. Ct., Atlanta Jud. Cir., #A-58654.)*
204.4. N.A.A.C.P., Va. Conference of N.A.A.C.P. and N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Va. Atty. Genl. Almond, et al. (ED Va., #2435, 2436.)*

And see N.A.A.C.P., 272.4.

210. Compulsory Registration
211. 1950 Internal Security Act

211.1. Communist Party of U. S. v. Subversive Activities Control Bd. (CA DC.) For facts, see II DOCKET 4, 34. Following oral argument May 27, Pl. moved to have FBI reports made available to it under Jencks decision, 291.1. Pending. Pet. moved for dismissal of SACB ruling against Pet., based on U.S.S.C. decision in Yates, 241.1; pending.
211.3. Brownell v. Labor Youth League. (CA DC.)*
211.4. Brownell v. Natl Council of American-Soviet Friendship. (CA DC.)*
211.5. Brownell v. Civil Rights Congress. (SACB #106-53.)*
211.6. Brownell v. Washington Pension Union. (SACB #114-55.)*
211.7. Brownell v. American Peace Crusade. (SACB #117-56.)*
211.8. Brownell v. California Labor School in San Francisco. (SACB.) For facts, see II DOCKET 5, 52. Def-School has ceased operation.
211.9. Brownell v. Am. Comm. for Protection of Foreign Born. (SACB.)*
211.10. Brownell v. California Emergency Defense Committee. (SACB) Def.-organization, established to help provide Smith Act defendants with legal defense and to urge repeal of Smith Act, dissolved March 31, 1957. May, 1957: 5 days of hearings held. Decision pending.

John T. McTernan, Esq., 112 W. 9th, Los Angeles.

212. 1954 Communist Control Act

212.1. Brownell v. Intl. Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers. (S.A.C.B.) For facts, see II DOCKET 5. June 11: during hearings, Resp. moved for access to reports by FBI agents, under decision in Jencks, 291.1; Gov't. voluntarily disclosed one such report.
212.2. Brownell v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers. (S.A.C.B.)*
- 68 -

213. State Laws

213.1. La. ex rel. LeBlanc, Atty. Genl. v. Lewis, et al. and N.A.A.C.P. (La. Ct. of App.)*
213.2. Lewis, et al. & N.A.A.C.P. v. LeBlanc. Atty. Genl. (DC La.)*
220. Listing
221. By the Attorney General of the United States

221.1. National Lawyers Guild v. Brownell. (Dept. of Justice.) For facts, see II DOCKET 5, 34, 52. May: Guild filed additional memo with H'g Officer Coddaire for elimination of additional interrogatories because asking for irrelevant and old information, under U.S.S.C. decisions in Konigsberg and Schware, 265.21, .22. Pending.
221.3. Assn. of Lithuanian Workers v. Brownell. (U.S.S.C.) Correction of facts at II DOCKET 6: Atty. Genl. notified Assn. of intention to list unless they answered certain interrogatories. Assn. refused to answer, claiming impossibility and unconstitutionality. After listing, Assn. sued for injunction to remove name from Atty. Gen'l's list. CA DC affirmed dismissal of Assn's. complaint. Petition for cert. pending.
221.4. Brownell v. Independent Socialist League. (Dept. of Justice.)*
221.5. Brownell v. Californians for the Bill of Rights. (Dept. of Justice.)*
221.6. Brownell v. Natl. Council of Arts, Sciences and Professions. (Dept. of Justice.)*
222. By Congressional Committees
Case note on:

Methodist Federation v. Eastland, I DOCKET 162.1, 4 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 466-71 (Apr. 1957).

223. By State authorities

223.1. Luscomb v. Bowker, et al. (Suffolk Co. Ct.) For facts, see II DOCKET 6. Trial date: September 16.
223.2. Tormey v. Bowker, et al. (Suffolk Co. Ct.)*
ASSOCIATION: As affecting members (240-299)
240. Criminal Penalties for Membership
241. Smith Act: conspiracy

241.1. Yates, et al. v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 6. June 17: U.S.S.C reversed convictions of 5 Defs.; remanded 9 Defs. for new trial under standards set in opinion by Harlan, J. (Clark, J. dissenting; Black, Douglas, Jj. concurring re reversal; dissenting re remand because they believe Smith Act unconstitutional as violation of First Amdt. rights.)

Harlan, J.: (1) indictment count charging Defs. with "organizing" Communist Party improper because Party came into being in 1945 and 3-yr. statute of limitations had run prior to indictment against Defs. in 1951. (2) "advocacy" charge to jury: "We cannot allow a conviction to stand" on such an "equivocal" direction to the jury as occurred here; "failing to distinguish between advocacy of forcible overthrow as an abstract doctrine and advocacy of action to that end" was fatal error. "The need for precise and understandable instructions on this issue is further emphasized by the equivocal character of the evidence in this record, * * * Instances of speech that could be considered to amount to 'advocacy of action' are so few and far between as to be almost completely overshadowed by the hundreds of instances * * * in which overthrow, if mentioned at all, occurs in the course of doctrinal disputation so remote from action as to be almost wholly lacking in probative value. Vague references to 'revolutionary' or 'militant' action of an unspecified character * * * might in addition be given too great weight by the jury on this central point * * *." (3) Under 28 U.S.C. 2106, Ct. finds "no adequate evidence in the record which would permit a jury to find that they were members of such a conspiracy * * * "At best, this voluminous record shows but a half-dozen or so scattered incidents which, even under the loosest standards, could be deemed to show such advocacy. Most of these were not connected with any of the Pets., or occurred many yrs. before the period covered by the indictment. We are unable to regard this sporadic showing as sufficient to justify viewing the Communist party as the nexus between these Pets. and the conspiracy charged * * * In short, while the record contains evidence of little more than a general program of educational activity by the Communist party, which included advocacy of violence as a theoretical matter, we are not prepared to say, at this stage of the case, that it would be impossible for a jury, resolving all conflicts in favor of the Gov't. and giving the evidence as to these [2] episodes its utmost sweep, to find that advocacy of action was also engaged in when the group involved was thought particularly trustworthy, dedicated and suited for violent tasks."

241.2. Mesarosh, et al. v. U. S. (DC Pa.) For facts, see II DOCKET 6, 35. Trial date: Fall.

Case notes:

45 Georgetown L. Jour. 508-12 (Spring 1957).

Wash. Univ. L. Q. 170-6 (Apr. 1957).

241.3. Wellman, et al. v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 6. June 24: Leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for cert. granted. CA 6 judgment vacated, remanded in light of Yates, 241.1, Clark, J. dissenting.
241.4. Fujimoto, et al. v. U. S. (CA 9.) For facts, see II DOCKET 6. Jy. 3: CA 9 requests Gov't. by memo to indicate within 20 days from date whether or not it is of the view that Yates decision, 241.1 requires a reversal in Fujimoto.
241.5. Huff, et al. v. U. S. (CA 9, #14320.)* (DC holding that 3-yr. statute of limitations did not apply to "organizing" allegation of conspiracy indictment mentioned in U.S.S.C. decision in Yates 241.1 as error.)
241.6. Sentner, et al. v. U. S. (CA 8.) For facts, see II DOCKET 6. June 28: CA ordered rehearing of Defs'. appeals, based on U.S.S.C. decisions in Yates, Wellman, 241.1, .3.
- 69 -

241.7. Kuzma, et al. v. U. S. (CA 3.)*
241.8. Bary, et al. v. U. S. (CA 10.)*
241.9. Brandt, et al. v. U. S. (CA 6.)*
241.10. Silverman, et al. v. U. S. (CA 2.)*
241.11. Charney, et al. v. U. S. (CA 2.)*
241.12. U. S. v. Russo, et al. (DC Mass.) For facts, see II DOCKET 7, 35. Trial Judge Aldrich ordered U.S. Atty. to notify each Def. by Aug. 19 as to whether Gov't. intends to continue indictment, in light of Yates decision, 241.1. Hearing on all motions: Sept. 11.
241.13. U. S. v. Mirabel, et al. (DC Puerto Rico.)*
242. Smith Act: mere membership

242.1. Lightfoot v. U. S. (U.S.S.C) For facts, see II DOCKET 7. June 4: U.S.S.C. ordered reargument in Fall, 1957.
242.2. Scales v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 7. June 4: U.S.S.C. ordered reargument in Fall, 1957.
242.3. Blumberg v. U. S. (CA 3.)*
242.4. Noto v. U. S. (CA 2.)*
242.5. U. S. v. Weiss. (ND Ill. E.D.) For facts, see II DOCKET 7. Continued generally awaiting decision in Lightfoot, 242.1.
242.6. U. S. v. Blum (ND Ill. E.D.)*
242.7. U. S. v. Russo. (DC Mass.) For facts, see II DOCKET 7. Continued until after U.S.S.C. decisions in Lightfoot and Scales, 242.1 and .2.
242.8. U. S. v. Hellman. (DC Mont.)*
243. 18 U.S.C. 2384
244. State laws
Case note on:

Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497, I DOCKET 130.1, 30 South. Calif. L. Rev. 101-7 (Dec. 1956).

244.1. Pennsylvania v. Dolsen (Pa. Super. Ct.) For facts, see II DOCKET 7, 35. Ct. dismissed indictment on authority of Nelson, 350 U.S. 497.
244.2. Pennsylvania v. Onda. (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas.)*
244.4. Alabama v. Rev. King, et al. (Ala. S. Ct.)
244.5. Louisiana v. G. and J. Jenkins. (Crim. Dist. Ct., Orleans Parish, #156-434Y, #156-430A; Crim. Dist. Ct., Baton Rouge Parish.)*
250. Civil Disabilities: Federal
251. Federal employment
Law review articles:

Robert J. Morgan, Federal Loyalty-Security removals, 1946-56, 36 Neb. L. Rev. 412-446 (May 1957).

David Fellman, The loyalty defendants, Wis. L. Rev. 1-39 (Jan. 1957).

Case note on:

Cole v. Young, 357 U.S. 536 (1956), I DOCKET 220.6, in 41 Minn. L. Rev. 679-83 (Apr. 1957).

251.4. Service v. Dulles, et al. (U.S.S.C., #407.) For facts, see II DOCKET 8. June 17: U.S.S.C. reversed, ordered Pl. to be given back pay, because Pl. had not been afforded protection under departmental regulations when his clearance, which he had won 3 times before the State Dept. and 3 times before the Dep't's Loyalty Security Bd., was post-audited by the Loyalty Review Bd. of Civil Service Comm. and lost. Ct. held that, under regulations, a ruling by the Dep't. bd. supported by the Under-secy of State could not be reviewed.
251.5. J. Duncan v. Summerfield, U. S. Postmaster. (CA DC.)*
251.6. A. Duncan v. Blattenberger, U. S. Public Printer. (DC DC, #4203/56.)*
251.7. Tucker v. Brucker. *
251.8. Bernabei v. Summerfield. (CA DC.)*
251.9. Vitarelli v. Seaton. (DC DC.)*
251.10. Coleman, et al. v. Brucker. (DC DC.) For facts, see II DOCKET 53. Pls. moved for order requiring Justice Dept. to show Trial Judge findings of Army security bd. against Pls. Pending.
252. Deprivation of passport rights
Law review article:

Nicholas Doman, A comparative analysis: Do citizens have the right to travel? 43 A.B.A.J. 307 (April 1957).

252.2. Dayton v. Dulles. (CA DC.) For facts, see II DOCKET 8, 36. June 28: heard and submitted.

Amicus brief filed by Federation of American Scientists, by Nathan H. David, Esq.

252.3. Stewart v. Dulles. (CA DC.) For facts, see II DOCKET 36. July 3: CA affirmed DC holding that Pet. complied with passport regulations and therefore entitled to quasi-judicial hearing. Pet's. request for immediate hearing before Def. pending.
252.4. Chodorov v. Dulles. (CA DC.)*
252.21. Kent v. Dulles. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 8, 36. June 27: CA affirmed DC dismissal of petition (5-3) holding against Pet. on all issues: nature of Communist movement; power of Gov't. in foreign affairs; right to travel; nature of passport; regulations of Dept.; affidavit requirement. Petition for cert. to be filed.
252.22. Briehl v. Dulles. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 8, 36. June 27: CA affirmed DC dismissal of petition (5-3) in joint decision with Kent, 252.21. Petition for cert. to be filed.
252.23.. Leff v. Dulles. (DC DC.)*
252.24. DuBerg v. Dulles. (DC DC.)*
252.25. Lamont v. Dulles. (DC DC.) Suit filed June 1957 to obtain passport, following Def's. 1951 refusal to issue passport to Pl. Issue: constitutionality of question added to passport application in 1956 concerning present and former membership in Communist Party. Pending.

Leonard Boudin, Esq., 25 Broad Street, New York City.

- 70 -

253. Unfavorable Army discharges

253.1. Re Jensen. (U.S. Army.) For facts, see II DOCKET 8. Pet. given undesirable discharge from U.S. Army.
253.4. Harmon v. Stevens. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 9, 54. Petition for cert. granted; to be argued Fall 1957; with Abramowitz, 253.6.

Case note:

25 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 616-19 (Apr. 1957).

253.5. Marshall v. Brucker. (U.S.S.C., #839 Misc.-1956.) For facts, see II DOCKET 9. Apr. 26: CA DC affirmed dismissal of complaint. Petition for cert. pending; Sol. Gen. filed memo he does not oppose granting of cert.
253.6. Abramowitz v. Brucker. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 9, 54. Petition for cert. granted; to be argued Fall 1957 with Harmon, 253.4.
253.7. Bland v. Hartman, et al. (CA 9, #15155.) Mar. 28: CA 9 affirmed DC dismissal of complaint. May 3: petition for rehearing denied.
254. Deprivation of veterans disability payments

254.1. Wellman v. Higley, Admr. Veterans Affairs. (CA DC.) For facts, see II DOCKET 9, 36. DC dismissed case on ground Ct. had no jurisdiction. Appeal pending.
254.2. Thompson v. Veterans Admin. (VA Bd. of App.)*
255. Deprivation of Social Security rights
256. Deprivation of housing rights
257. Deprivation of Federal Licenses

257.1. In re Application of Lamb for Renewal of TV License. (Fedl. Comm. Comm., #11048, File BRCT-42.) For facts, see II DOCKET 9. After 3 yrs., FCC granted Lamb's application for renewal of license to operate TV station, on basis of H'g. Exam's. recommendation.
257.2. In re Application of Lafferty for Renewal of Radio Operator's License. (Fedl. Comm. Comm.)*
258. Deportation proceedings

258.1. Rowoldt v. Perfetto. (U.S.S.C., #34.) For facts, see II DOCKET 10. U.S.S.C. ordered reargument Fall 1957.
258.2. Re Janosco. (Immigration and Naturalization Service.) Non-citizen arrested for deportation to Hungary on charges of membership in Socialist Workers Party, which he denies. Pending.

Marshall Ross, Esq., Los Angeles.

259. Denaturalization proceedings.
And see 358.
260. Civil Disabilities: State, Local and Private
261. State or local governmental employment

261.1. Wilkins v. Carlander, et al. (Super. Ct., Kings Co. #490844.) For facts, see II DOCKET 10. July 30: hearing to determine whether Port of Seattle is in contempt of court for discharging Pl. in alleged violation of temporary restraining order, pending outcome of Savelle, 280.1.
261.2. Nagin v. Zurmuhlen. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co.)*
261.3. Hehir v. NYC Transit Authority, NY State Civil Service Commission, et ano. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Co.)*
261.5. Reif v. NYC Dept. of Hospitals. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see II DOCKET 10, 37. May: State Civil Service Comm. unanimously ordered Def.-Hospital to reinstate Pl., holding Pl. had occupied no position that "by sabotage, disclosure of confidential information or by other means, she can imperil the security and defense * * *" Def's. appeal pending.
261.7. Crowe v. County of Wayne, Mich. (Cir. Ct. Wayne Co.)*
261.8. Bryan, et al. v. Austin, Sup't. of Schools, et al. (U.S.S.C., #931.) (148 F. Supp. 563.) For facts, see II DOCKET 37, 54. June 24: U.S.S.C. held, per curiam: S.C. repealed 1956 statutes forbidding employment of N.A.A.C.P. members by any governmental agency or school district. Therefore, cause has become moot.
261.9. Wolstenholme v. Oakland Library Bd. (Alameda Co. Super. Ct.)*
262. Teaching
And see 342.
263. Denial of State unemployment insurance rights

263.1. Syrek v. Calif. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Bd., et al. (Super. Ct., Alameda Co.)*
263.2. Re Albertson. (NY Unemp. Ins. Referee.)*
263.3. Barnes v. Admr., Div. of Employment Security and Chamber of Commerce (employer). (Civil Dist. Ct. for Parish of Orleans, Div. C, #347-562, Doc. 5.) Pl. editor of Chamber of Commerce "Bulletin" 1953-1956 discharged for refusal to resign from membership in Exec. Bd. of Southern Conference Educational Fund and to sever friendship with Dr. Dombrowski, Exec. Dir. of Fund. Denied unemployment compensation because "guilty of misconduct connected with his employment", Ct. reversed, granted Pl. compensation. Ct. described Fund as successor to Southern Conference for Human Welfare. "Neither organization, nor Dr. Dombrowski, had been judicially charged or proved to be Communistic, though the hearings recently conducted by the U.S. Senate Internal Security Committee in New Orleans established that Dr. Dombrowski was connected with many organizations espousing causes lauded by the Communists * * * The substance of the evidence against Dr. Dombrowski is that he neither condemned nor excluded Communists from any of his organizations. The gravamen of the evidence against the Fund and its members is that they aggressively espouse integration of the races * * * [N]o individual or private association of individuals can * * * make one's religious, political or racial beliefs or practices, or membership in a labor organization, misconduct that would deny him the benefits of a state unemployment security statute * * *. Misconduct in connection with one's employment must be
- 71 -

a wilful or wanton disregard of the interests of the employer, or a rule of conduct or morality one has a right to expect from an employee."

Benjamin E. Smith, Esq., 406 Cigali Bldg., New Orleans.

264. Denial of State licenses
265. Proceedings against attorneys and Bar applicants

265.3. Florida v. Sheiner. (Fla. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see II DOCKET 10-11, 37, 54-5. Def's. motion for dismissal of State's appeal as futile and frivolous pending.
265.4. In re Schlesinger. (Sub-comm. of Comm. on Offenses of Allegheny Co., Common Pleas Ct., Pa.)*
265.5. In re Steinberg. (Sub-comm. of Comm. on Offenses of Allegheny Co. Common Pleas Ct., Pa.)*
265.20. Schware v. Bd. of Bar Examiners of N. Mex. (U.S.S.C., #92.) For facts, see II DOCKET 11. May 6: U.S.S.C. unanimously reversed Def's. refusal to admit Pl., per Black, J.: "A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amdt * * *. A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, * * * but any qualification must have a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity to practice law * * *." (1) use of aliases: "Of course it is wrong to use an alias when it is done to cheat or defraud another but it can hardly be said that Schware's attempt to forestall antisemitism in securing employment or organizing his fellow workers was wrong * * *." (2) arrests: "The mere fact that a man has been arrested has very little, if any, probative value in showing that he has engaged in any misconduct * * *." Re recruiting persons to fight for Loyalist Spain: "* * * it does not seem that such an offense indicated moral turpitude—even in 1940. Many persons in this country actively supported the Spanish Loyalist Gov't * * *." (3) membership in Communist Party 1932-1940: "* * * During the depression when millions were unemployed and our economic system was paralyzed many turned to the Communist Party out of desperation or hope * * *." Explaining reasons for Comm. Party membership in 1930s, Ct. reiterated Wieman v. Updegraff, and concluded, re 15 yr. old membership, "We conclude that his past membership * * * does not justify an inference that he presently has bad moral character." Frankfurter, Clark, Harlan, Jj. concurred.)

Law review article:

John T. McTernan, Schware, Konigsberg and Independence of the Bar: the return to reason, XVII Lawyers Guild Rev. 48-53 (Summer 1957).

265.21. Konigsberg v. State Bar of California and Comm. of Bar Examiners. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 11, 37. May 6: U.S.S.C. reversed (Frankfurter, J. and Harlan and Clark, JJ. dissenting.) Black, J.: (1) alleged Communist Party membership in 1941: "Even if it be assumed that Konigsberg was a member * * * in 1941, the mere fact of membership would not support an inference that he did not have good moral character." (2) Criticism of public officials and U.S.S.C.: "* * * When read in the light of the ordinary give-and-take of political controversy the editorials Konigsberg wrote are not unusually extreme and fairly interpreted only say that certain officials were performing their duties in a manner that, in the opinion of the writer, was injurious to the public * * * [no] inference of bad moral character can rationally be drawn * * *" (3) Refusal to answer questions re political belief and association asked by Bar Examiners: "* * * his claim that the questions were improper was not frivolous * * * Obviously the State could not draw unfavorable inferences as to his truthfulness, candor or his moral character in general if his refusal to answer was based on a belief that the U.S. Constitution prohibited the type of inquiries which the Comm. was making * * *." (4) Comm. found Konigsberg had failed to prove he did not advocate violent overthrow of Gov't.: Ct. quoted his denials of such aim.

"* * * A bar composed of lawyers of good character is a worthy objective but it is unnecessary to sacrifice vital freedoms in order to obtain that goal. It is also important both to society and the bar itself that lawyers be unintimidated—free to think, speak, and act as members of an Independent Bar * * *"

July: Pet. filed motion for admission to Calif. Bar; pending.

Law review article:

John T. McTernan, Schware, Konigsberg and Independence of the Bar: the return to reason, XVII Lawyers Guild Rev. 48-53 (Summer 1957).

265.22. Patterson v. Oregon State Bd. of Bar Examiners. (Ore. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see II DOCKET 11. May 13: U.S.S.C. granted motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for writ of cert.; per curiam vacated judgment of Ore. Sup. Ct. and remanded for reconsideration in light of Konigsberg and Schware decisions, 265.20, .21. Ore. S. Ct. to set date for reargument in Sept.
265.23. Re Anastaplo. (Comm. on Character and Fitness, 1st App. Ct. Dist. of Ill.) (3 Ill. 2d 471, 121 N.E. 2d 826; 349 U.S. 903, 908.) See I DOCKET 18. Applicant originally declined to answer questions re political beliefs before Comm. on Character and Fitness in 1950; application denied; U.S.S.C. denied cert. Relying on U.S.S.C. decisions in Schware, Konigsberg, Patterson, 265.20, .21, .22, Applicant petitioned Comm. for rehearing. Jy. 2: Comm. denied petition for admission for same reasons given in earlier case.

George Anastaplo, pro se, 6026 Ellis Ave., Chicago.

Law review article:

Malcolm P. Sharp, Freedom and a free bar, XVII Lawyers Guild Rev. 43-47 (Summer 1957).

266. Deprivation of right to tax exemption

266.1. Speiser v. Randall and Foley. (Calif. Sup. Ct.) and
266.2. Prince v. City and Co. of San Francisco. (Calif. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see II DOCKET 11. Apr. 24: Calif. Sup. Ct. (4-3) upheld constitutionality of loyalty oath requirement for
- 72 -

veterans seeking property tax exemptions. Appeal to U.S.S.C. pending.

And see First Unitarian Church, 130.3

266.3. Lehrer v. Hall. (Calif. Super. Ct., Marin Co.)*
266.4. Bliss v. Quinn. (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Co.)*
267. Private employment—teaching
And see 262.
268. Private employment—defense establishments

268.1. Parker, et al. v. Lester, et al. (ND Calif.)*
268.3a. Dupree v. U. S. (CA 3.) For facts, see II DOCKET 55. CA affirmed DC dismissal of complaint on ground not determined by DC nor considered by parties pressing appeal: that complaint, tho suing under Fed. Torts Act, did not sufficiently allege tortious conduct by U.S. Petition for rehearing denied.
268.5. Re Dressler. (Secy. of Defense Wilson.) For facts, see II DOCKET 38. June 12: Employee filed motion for review of ruling by Chi. Industrial Personnel Security H'g. Bd., asking denial of clearance be declared null and void or that Employee be granted full hearing before authority competent to hear all issues, including question as to whether Defense Dept. has jurisdiction. Petitioner contends he had no access or possibility of access to classified information, never engaged in such work during 17 yrs. with Wis. Telephone Co., and that order violates 1st, 5th and 6th Amdts. Pending.

M. Michael Essin, Esq., 623 N. 2d St., Milwaukee, Wis.; David Scribner, Esq., 15 William St., NYC.

268.5a. Dressler v. Wis. Emp. Relations Bd. (Cir. Ct., Milw. Co. #266-453.) Review of State Labor Bd's. dismissal of Pl's. complaint that Wis. Telephone Co. committed unfair labor practice in refusing to arbitrate Pl's. discharge. Trial date: Jy. 19.

M. Michael Essin, Esq., 623 N. 2d St., Milwaukee, Wis.

268.7. Kreznar v. Wilson. (DC DC.)*
268.8. Webb v. U. S., et al. (ED Pa.) Pl.-employee of RCA seeks injunction against Def.-RCA requiring, as a condition of employment, that Pl. obtain clearance from U.S. Industrial Personnel Security Bd. Issues: whether procedures of said Bd. deny Pl. due process of law by denying him fair or reasonable "opportunity to establish his eligibility to qualify as a loyal and normal American citizen". 3-judge Ct. granted Gov't's. motion to dismiss.

John Rogers Carroll, Esq. and William J. Woolston, Esq., 2015 Land Title Bldg., Philadelphia.

269. Private employment—other

269.1. Faulk v. AW ARE, Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co.)*
269.2. Allen v. Local 1976, Carpenters Union—AFL-CIO. (Los Angeles Dist. Ct. of App.) For facts, see II DOCKET 12, 38. Appeal pending.
270. Criminal Penalties for Non-disclosure
271. Congressional Committees
Law review note:

Purpose and pertinency in Congressional investigations, 41 Minn. L. Rev. 622-638 (Apr. 1957).


Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Our Patriotic Duty to Dissent, 2006 Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pa.

271.1. U. S. v. Lamont, 236 F. 2d 312, II DOCKET 12.

Case note:

30 S. Calif. L. Rev. 223-26 (Feb. 1957).

271.5. U. S. v. Davis. (WD Mich.)*
271.6. U. S. v. Watson. (CA DC.)*
271.7. U. S. v. Barenblatt. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 12-3, 38. June 24: U.S.S.C. per curiam granted cert.; vacated conviction; remanded to CA DC for reconsideration in light of Watkins, 271.14, (Clark, J. dissenting.)
271.8. U. S. v. Lorch. (SD Ohio, W. Div., #3185.)*
271.9. U. S. v. Russell. (CA DC, #13529.)*
271.10. U. S. v. Deutch. (CA DC.)*
271.11. U. S. v. Sacher. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 13, 38. June 24: U.S.S.C. per curiam granted cert.; vacated conviction; remanded to CA DC for reconsideration in light of Watkins decision, 271.14. (Clark, J. dissenting.)
271.12. U. S. v. Gojack. (CA DC.)*
271.13. U. S. v. Metcalf. (SD Ohio.)*
271.14. Watkins v. U. S. (U.S.S.C., #261.) For facts, see II DOCKET 13. June 17: U.S.S.C. reversed conviction, dismissed indictment. Warren, C.J.: After discussion of British and American history of legislative inquiry power, Ct. stated: (1) re First Amdt.: "Abuses of the investigative process may imperceptibly lead to abridgment of protected freedoms. The mere summoning of a witness and compelling him to testify, against his will, about his beliefs, expressions or associations is a measure of Gov'tal interference. And when those forced revelations concern matters that are unorthodox, unpopular, or even hateful to the general public, the reaction in the life of the witness may be disastrous. This effect is even more harsh when it is past beliefs, * * * that are disclosed and judged by current standards * * * The critical element is the existence of, and the weight to be ascribed to, the interest of the Congress in demanding disclosures from an unwilling witness. We cannot simply assume, however, that every Congressional investigation is justified by a public need that overbalances any private rights affected * * * (2) "We have no doubt that there is no Congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure * * *" (3) "It is the responsibility of the Congress * * * to insure that compulsory process is used only in furtherance of a legislative purpose. That requires that the instructions to an investigating comm. spell out that group's jurisdiction and purpose with sufficient particularity
- 73 -

*** It would be difficult to imagine a less explicit authorizing resolution than that of the UnAmerican Activities Comm. Who can define the meaning of 'un-American'? *** The members of the comm. have clearly demonstrated that they did not feel themselves restricted in any way to propaganda in the narrow sense of the word. Unquestionably the comm. conceived of its task in the grand view of its name *** Combining the language of the resolution with the construction it has been given, it is evident that the preliminary control of the comm. exercised by the House of Representatives is slight or nonexistent * * *" (4) "Plainly these comms. are restricted to the missions delegated to them, i.e., to acquire certain data to be used by the House or the Sen. in coping with a problem that falls within its legislative sphere. No witness can be compelled to make disclosures on matters outside that area. This is a jurisdictional concept of pertinency drawn from the nature of a Cong. comm's source of authority *** [Because the Comm. chairman did not tell Pl. the pertinency of the questions asked,] "Pet. was thus not accorded a fair opportunity to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer, and his conviction is necessarily invalid under the due process clause of the Fifth Amdt. ***" (Clark, J. dissented.)
271.15. Shelton v. U. S. (CA DC.)*
271.16. U. S. v. Whitman. (DC DC.)*
271.17. Knowles v. U. S. (CA DC.)*
271.18. Peck v. U. S. (CA DC.) For facts, see II DOCKET 39, 55. Jy. 5: CA, under Watkins decision, 271.14, remanded to DC to entertain motion to dismiss indictment or for new trial. Pending in DC.
271.19. Price v. U. S. (CA DC.)*
271.20. Liveright v. U. S. (CA DC.)*
271.21. U. S. v. Nathan. (DC DC.) For facts, see II DOCKET 56. Following U.S.S.C. decision in Watkins 271.14, DC set aside one of three counts, asked counsel to submit briefs on applicability of Watkins to remaining questions re whether Def. was ever a Communist, whether he truthfully swore he had never been one in passport application.
271.22. U. S. v. Miller. (DC DC.) For facts, see II DOCKET 56. May: Def. convicted of two counts of contempt. June 28: Following U.S.S.C. decision in Watkins, 271.14, DC reversed conviction on one count because Def. had challenged its pertinency at time of hearing; reaffirmed conviction re who attended meeting of Communist writers in 1947 because pertinency not raised at time. To be appealed.
271.23. U. S. v. Sullivan. (SD NY, #152-238.)


271.24. U. S. v. Yarus aka Tyne. (SD NY, #15586.)


271.25. U. S. v. Seeger. (SD NY.) For facts, see II DOCKET 56. May 27-28: argument on motions to dismiss. Request for rehearing filed, in light of Watkins, 271.14.
271.26. U. S. v. Kling. (ED Mo., E. Div., #28722 Div. #1.)*
272. State committees

272.1. Sweezy v. New Hampshire by Atty. Genl. Wyman. (U.S.S.C., #175.) For facts, see II DOCKET 13. June 17: U.S.S.C. reversed (Frankfurter and Harlan, Jj. concurring in result; Clark, Burton, Jj. dissenting.) Warren, C.J.: "The lack of any indications that the legislature wanted the information the Attorney General attempted to elicit from petitioner must be treated as the absence of authority. It follows that the use of the contempt power, notwithstanding the interference with constitutional rights, was not in accordance with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amdt." Frankfurter, J.: "When weighed against the grave harm resulting from governmental intrusion into the intellectual life of a university, such justification for compelling a witness to discuss the contents of his lecture appears grossly inadequate. Particularly is this so where the witness has sworn that neither in the lecture nor at any other time did he ever advocate overthrowing the Gov't by force and violence."
272.2. New Hampshire v. Uphaus. (N.H. Sup. Ct.) (130 A. 2d 278.)*
272.3. New Hampshire by Wyman v. De Gregory. (N.H. Sup. Ct., #4563.)*
272.4. N.A.A.C.P., Va. Conference of N.A.A.C.P., et al. v. Ames. (ED Va.)*
273. Legal and administrative tribunals

273.1. U. S. v. Witkovich. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 13. Apr. 29: U.S.S.C. affirmed DC dismissal of indictment, by Frankfurter, J.:

"Acceptance of the interpretation of §242(d) urged by the Government would raise doubts as to the statute's validity. By construing the Act to confer power on the Attorney General and his agents to inquire into matters that go beyond assuring an alien's availability for deportation we would, at the very least, open up the question of the extent to which an administrative officer may inhibit deportable aliens from renewing activities that subjected them to deportation *** This is not Carlson v. Landon, supra, where the question was whether an alien could be detained during the customarily brief period pending determination of deportability. Contrariwise, *** supervision of the undeported alien may be a lifetime problem. In these circumstances, issues touching liberties that the Constitution safeguards, even for an alien 'person,' would fairly be raised on the Government's view of the statute." (Clark, Burton, Jj. dissenting.)

273.2. U. S. v. Keller. (ND Ill., Ed, #55 CR 608.) For facts, see II DOCKET 13. June: on motion of Gov't., case dismissed on basis of U.S.S.C. decision in Witkovich, 273.1.
273.3 non-crim.. Nukk, et al. v. Shaughnessy. (SD NY.)*
273.4 non-crim.. Sentner v. Barton. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 14, 39. May 20: U.S.S.C. per curiam affirmed judgment on basis of Witkovich, 273.1, (Burton, Clark, Jj. dissenting.)
273.5. Kentucky v. Rhine. (Ky. Ct. of App.) For facts, see II DOCKET 39. June 14: Ky. Ct. of App. affirmed Def's. acquittal
- 74 -

of contempt for refusal to answer grand jury questions, despite Pros. Atty's. alleged offer of immunity. Ct. held: Pros. Atty. had no authority to offer immunity from State prosecution; since he could not offer immunity from Fedl. prosecution, State privilege against self-incrimination would be meaningless if it did not also protect against answering questions which could lead to Fedl. prosecution.

And see 335.

274. Refusal to produce records

274.1. Flaxer v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 14. June 24: U.S.S.C. per curiam granted cert.; vacated conviction; remanded to CA DC for reconsideration in light of Watkins decision, 271.14, (Clark, J. dissenting.)
274.2. U. S. v. Baxter. (ED Mich., SD.)*
274.3. McPhaul v. U. S. (CA 6.)*
280. Civil Penalties for Non-disclosure

280.1. Savelle and Nostrand v. U. of Wash., et al. (Wash. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see II DOCKET 14, 39. Appeal by Def.-State pending.
280.2. Pickus v. Bd. of Educ., 138 N.E. 2d 532. For facts, see II DOCKET 14, 39.

32 Notre Dame Lawyer 524-27 (May 1957).

280.4. Bd. of Higher Education v. Allen, Hughes, et al. (Sup. Ct., Albany Co.)


280.5. Bd. of Education v. Allen, et al. (Sup. Ct., Albany Co.) For facts, see II DOCKET 14, 39. Ct. upheld decision of Supt. of Education that teachers need not answer questions requiring them to inform on other teachers' political views.

And see 262 and 267.

290. Penalties for False Disclosure
291. Taft-Hartley oath

291.1. Jencks v. U. S. (U.S.S.C., #23.) For facts, see II DOCKET 14. June 3: U.S.S.C. reversed conviction, ordered new trial because of error by trial ct. in refusing to order production to Def. by Gov't. of prior FBI reports made by 2 witnesses relating to subject matter of their testimony, per Brennan, J. (Clark, J. dissenting.)

"We hold that the pet. was not required to lay a preliminary foundation of inconsistency [between Gov't. witness' testimony and prior FBI report], because a sufficient foundation was established by the testimony of Matusow and Ford that their reports were of the events and activities related in their testimony *** A requirement of a showing of conflict would be clearly incompatible with our standards for the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts and must therefore be rejected. For the interest of the United States in a criminal prosecution '*** is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done ***' *** The practice of producing gov't. documents to the trial judge for his determination of relevancy and materiality, without hearing the accused, is disapproved *** The burden is the Gov't's., not to be shifted to the trial judge, to decide whether the public prejudice of allowing the crime to go unpunished is greater than that attendant upon the possible disclosure of state secrets and other confidential information in the Gov't's. possession."

291.2. Gold v. U. S. (DC DC.) For facts, see II DOCKET 15, 40, 57. On retrial, dismissed on Gov't's. motion on Gov't's. statement that it lacked necessary evidence for conviction.
291.3. Bryson v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 15. CA 9 affirmed conviction. Application for cert. pending.
291.4. Travis v. U. S. (CA 10.)*
291.5. Lohman v. U. S. (CA 6.)*
291.6. U. S. v. Killian. (CA 7.)*
291.7. U. S. v. Haug, et ano. (ND Ohio ED.) For facts, see II DOCKET 40. June 22: motions to dismiss denied by Trial Ct.

And see West, 291.20.

291.20. U. S. v. West, Haug, et al. (ND Ohio, ED, #22230.) For facts, see II DOCKET 40. June 22: Trial Ct. denied motions to dismiss, granted certain requests for bill of particulars, particularly as to overt acts alleged.
292. Government Security Questionnaires

292.1. U. S. v. McDaniel. (ED Wash., S. Div., #C-4519.) For facts, see II DOCKET 15. July 9: trial date.

Law review articles:

Austin W. Scott, Jr., Constitutional limitations on substantive criminal law, 29 Rocky Mtn. L. Rev. 275-95 (Apr. 1957).

John M. Coe, Practices of police and prosecution prior to trial, XVII Lawyers Guild Rev. 62-66 (Summer 1957).

300. Searches and Seixures
Law review articles:

Emmerick Handler, The Fourth Amendment, federalism and Mr. Justice Frankfurter, 8 Syracuse L. Rev. 166-190 (Spring 1957).

Judson A. Parsons, Jr., State-Federal crossfire in Search and Seizure and Self-incrimination, 42 Cornell L. Rev. 346-373 (Spring 1957).

Law review note:

Search and seizure: A review of the cases since People v. Cahan, 45 Calif. L. Rev. 50-58 (Mar. 1957).

301. Wiretapping

301.3. Wirin v. Parker, L. A. Police Chief. (Calif. Sup. Ct.)*
301.5. Costello v. U. S. (SD NY.)*
- 75 -

301.6. U. S. v. Benanti. (CA 2, #24427.) In appeal from conviction for bootlegging, Def. alleged error in admission of wiretap evidence obtained in violation of Fed. Comm. Act (47 USC 605) upon state ct. authorization obtained under NY Const. Art I, sec. 12, NY Crim. Code sec. 813-a, on belief Def. was engaged in narcotics dealing in violation of state law. May 6: CA 2 held NY police violated Fedl. statute, but evidence admissible in fedl. ct. because fedl. officers had no hand in procuring it and because NY officers not trying to enforce fedl. law. Since illegally-seized evidence would be admissible in state cts., exclusion from fedl. ct. would not deter illegal activity of state officers.

George J. Todaro, Esq., 135 Broadway, NYC.

302. Other Federal cases

302.1. Hinton v. Eastland, et al. (DC DC, Civ. #1167-56.)*
302.3. Kremen v. U. S. (U.S.S.C., #162.) Pets. convicted of harboring Smith Act fugitives. At time of arrest by FBI agents, after 24-hr. surveillance, agents made exhaustive search of cabin where found, seized its entire contents. No search warrant had been issued. Property seized taken to FBI office 200 miles away for further examination. May 13: U.S.S.C. per curiam reversed (Burton, Clark, Jj. dissenting), held seizure and removal of contents of cabin rendered guilty verdict illegal, remanded for new trial.

Norman Leonard, Esq., 240 Montgomery, San Francisco.

303. Other State cases

303.1. Levy v. Grant, et al. (S. Dist. Calif.)*
303.3. Cheveres v. City of Oxnard. (Super. Ct., Ventura Co., Calif.)*
303.4. People of NY v. Silfa, Silfa v. Kennedy. (NY Ct. of App.)*
303.5. Franklin, et al. v. Gough, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Ct.) Suit by cafe owner, employees, and customers (all Negroes) against 18 Los Angeles policemen for invading a cafe in civilian clothes, intimidating Pls., none of whom were arrested. $370,000 damages asked. Pending.

Hugh R. Manes, Esq., 6223 Selma Ave., and Fred Okrand, Esq., 257 S. Spring St., both of Los Angeles.

303.6. New York v. Walpin. (NYC Magistrates Ct.) Def. arrested in subway station after paying fare by Transit Authority policeman during rush hour because, though he was carrying 2 fire extinguishers and small package, Def. refused to give his name when asked, and could not satisfy policeman re his reasons for having such equipment. May 16: Magistrate Andrews dismissed charge.

Bernard G. Walpin, Esq.

303.7. Breithaupt v. Abram, Warden. (U.S.S.C.) (352 U.S. 432.) While Pet. unconscious in hospital following collision, sample of blood taken for alcohol test. At his subsequent manslaughter trial, testimony re blood test admitted; Pet. convicted. N.Mex. Sup. Ct. denied habeas corpus. U.S.S.C. affirmed, holding this is not conduct which shocks conscience or method of obtaining evidence which offends sense of justice within due process clause. Right of individual against such invasion of body outweighed by value of deterrent effect against drunk driving. Dissenters considered this as much violation of due process as forcible taking after physical struggle.
310. Indictment
Law review article:

Austin W. Scott, Jr., Fairness in accusation of crime, 41 Minn. L. Rev. 509-546 (April 1957).

311. Composition of grand jury (see also 510)
312. Character of evidence
320. Double Jeopardy
321. Federal cases

321.1. Pollard v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) (352 U.S. 354.) 1952: Def., without counsel, pleaded guilty to fedl. offense; later, in his absence, DC entered judgment suspending sentence, imposing probation. 1954: Def. arrested for violation of probation; Ct. set aside earlier order, sentenced him to 2 yrs., tho Def. without counsel at hearing. DC denied motion to vacate; CA affirmed. U.S.S.C. affirmed (5-4), holding DC action did not violate Double Jeopardy clause or deny speedy and public trial. Dissenters: reversal required by disregard for Pet's. rights; long delay and 1954 sentencing did not meet standards required by Fedl. Rules of Crim. Procedure.
330. Self-incrimination: Criminal Sanctions
Law review article:

Charles B. Nutting, The Fifth Amendment and privacy, 18 U. of Pitts. L. Rev. 533-44 (Spring 1957).

331. Congressional Committees

331.3. Singer v. U. S. (CA DC.) For facts, see II DOCKET 16. June 28: CA reversed conviction, on basis of U.S.S.C. decision in Watkins, 271.14. Cornell University reinstated Prof. Singer, who had been suspended on full salary.
331.4. McKenzie v. U. S. (CA 9.) For facts, see II DOCKET 16. CA 9 affirmed. Petition for certiorari pending.
331.5. Wollam v. U. S. (CA 9.) For facts, see II DOCKET 16. CA 9 affirmed; petition for certiorari pending.
331.6. Simpson v. U. S. (CA 9.) (241 F. 2d 222.) For facts, see II DOCKET 16, 58. CA 9 denied rehearing; petition for certiorari pending.
331.7. U. S. v. William Davis. (ED Mo., E. Div.)*
331.8. U. S. v. Simpson. (ED Mo., E. Div.)*
332. State Committees
333. Grand juries and tribunals

333.2. Brown v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 16, 41. June 10: reargument ordered in Fall.
- 76 -

333.3. Phillips v. U. S. (CA 9.) *
333.3a. Daschbach v. U. S. (CA 9.) Facts, issues and status similar to Phillips, see facts at II DOCKET 16. Pending.
333.3b. Pettus v. U. S. (CA 9.) Facts, issues and status similar to Phillips, see facts at II DOCKET 16. Pending.
333.4. Yates v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 16. June 10: reargument ordered in Fall.
333.6. Matles v. U. S. (CA 2.) For facts, see II DOCKET 58. CA 2 affirmed conviction to contempt. Petition for rehearing pending. In denaturalization case, motion for new trial pending, based on U.S.S.C. decision in Jencks, 291.1.
333.7. U. S. v. Halperin. (U.S.S.C.) (223 F. 2d 556.) Def. one of several convicted in conspiracy re tax frauds. Subpoenaed before grand jury, he asserted Fifth amdt. in refusing to answer certain questions, but asserted innocence. At trial, Def. answered similar questions, was cross-examined reclaim of privilege before grand jury. May 27: U.S.S.C. reversed contempt conviction, held (per Harlan, J.) such cross-examination impermissible. Assertion of innocence and claim of privilege not inconsistent, therefore cross-examination should not have been permitted to impeach him, since trial testimony not inconsistent with grand jury testimony, and trial jury could have drawn improper inference from his use of Fifth Amdt. privilege. Black, J. concurring (with Warren, C.J., Douglas, Brennan, Jj.): "I can think of no special circumstances that would justify use of a Constitutional privilege to discredit or convict a person who asserts it. The value of these Constitutional privileges is largely destroyed if persons can be penalized for relying on them. It seems peculiarly incongruous and indefensible for courts which exist and act only under the Constitution to draw inferences of lack of honesty from invocation of a privilege deemed worthy of enshrinement in the Constitution."

Henry G. Singer, Esq., 16 Court St., Brooklyn.

333.8. Curcio v. U. S. (U.S.S.C., #260.) (234 F. 2d 470.) Pet.-Secy. Treas. of Teamsters Union local subpoenaed before grand jury by personal subpoena and required to produce union records by subpoena duces tecum as union officer. Def. failed to produce records; on interrogation refused to disclose their whereabouts, asserting Fifth Amdt. privilege. Convicted for criminal contempt, 6 mth. sentence; CA 2 affirmed. U.S.S.C. reversed (Burton, J.), holding that tho union officer required to produce records, and action might have been taken against Def. for failure to produce, Def. protected by Fifth Amdt. against any requirement to give oral testimony against himself.

Samuel Mezansky, Daniel H. Greenberg, Esqs., 350 Fifth Ave., NYC.

334. Grants of immunity: federal
Case note on:

Ullmann v. U. S., 350 U. S. 422 (1956), I DOCKET #351.1 in 45 Kentucky L. Rev. 350-55 (Winter 1956).

334.2. U. S. v. Glasser, Symonds, Oka, McElarth. (CA DC.) For facts, see II DOCKET 58. May 20: argued before CA en banc; decision pending.
335. Grants of immunity: state

335.1. Morgan v. Ohio (U.S.S.C., #206 Misc.) For facts, see II DOCKET 17. June 24: U.S.S.C. granted leave to file in forma pauperis; vacated conviction and remanded to Ohio S. Ct. for reconsideration in light of U.S.S.C. decisions in Watkins, 271.14 and Sweezy, 272.1
335.2. Ohio v. Jackson, et ano. (Ohio Ct. of App.) *
335.3. Ohio v. Hupman, et al. (Ohio Ct. of App.) *
335.4. Raley, et al. v. Ohio. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see DOCKET 17. June 24: U.S.S.C. vacated convictions and remanded to Ohio S. Ct. for reconsideration in light of U.S.S.C. decisions in Watkins, 271.14 and Sweezy, 272.1.
335.5. Ohio v. Slagle, et al. (Ohio Ct. of App.) *
335.6. Ohio v. Arnold, et al. (Ct. of App., 9th Dist., #4524-31.) For facts, see II DOCKET 17. Hearing date: Sept. 17.
335.7. Knapp v. Schweitzer. (U.S.S.C.) (2 A.D. 2d 579, 157 NYS 2d 158, 820.) NY Art. 78 proceeding. Pl.-employer held in contempt for refusing to answer, on Fifth Amdt. grounds, questions posed by grand jury concerning bribery of union officials, after NY State granted immunity. Pl. claimed fear of self-incrimination under Taft-Hartley Act. NY Sup. Ct. held contempt order proper: if fedl. and state officers cooperating to compel testimony, as Pl. alleges, fedl. officers will not prosecute later, under McNabb rule; if they are not cooperating, there is no substantial danger of subsequent fedl. prosecution. NY Ct. of App. affirmed. Appeal to U.S.S.C. pending.

Bernard H. Fitzpatrick and William J. Keating, Esqs., Butler, Bennett and Fitzpatrick, NYC.

And see Rhine, 273.5.

336. Miscellaneous

336.1. Lambert v. California. (U.S.S.C. #590.) Feb. 1955 Appellant arrested and convicted of failing to register under 1933 Los Angeles ordinance requiring persons convicted of crime to register with chief of police, because she had been convicted of forgery in 1951 and put on probation but had not registered. Issues: constitutionality of ordinance under equal protection, due process and self-incrimination clauses. June 3: U.S.S.C. ordered reargument of appeal.

Samuel C. McMorris, Esq., 535 W. 49th Street, Los Angeles.

340. Self-incrimination: Civil Sanctions
341. Army discharges. See cases at 253
342. Employment—Public teachers

342.2a. Shlakman, et al. v. NY Bd. of Higher Educ. (Sup. Ct., Kings Co., NY.) *
- 77 -

342.3. Laba, et al. v. Newark Bd of Educ. (Newark Supt. of Schools.) For facts, see II DOCKET 17, 41-2, 58. Hearing held before School Supt.; decision awaited.
342.4. Mass v. San Francisco Bd. of Educ. (Cal. Super. Ct.) *
342.5. Schuyten v. Contra Costa Bd. of Educ. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App.) *
342.9. Bailan v. Bd. of Education. (U.S.S.C., #668.) For facts, see II DOCKET 59. May 20: U.S.S.C. granted petition for certiorari.
343. Employment—Other public officers

343.1. Lerner v. Transit Authority. (U.S.S.C.) (141 NE 2d 533.) *
343.2. Hancock v. Burns. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App., San Francisco.) *
343.3. Globe and Nelson v. Los Angeles County. (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Co.) *
344. Employment—Private

344.2. Wilson, et al. v. Loew's, Inc., et al. (U.S.S.C., #552.) *
344.3. Wilson v. Liberty Films, Inc., et al. (Los Angeles Co. Super Ct., #668887.) *
344.4. Compinsky v. Universal Pictures Co., Inc. (Los Angeles Mun. Ct., #365993.) *
345. Attorneys
346. Unemployment insurance

346.1. Kilpatrick v. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation. (Cuyahoga Co. Com. Pleas Ct., #669433.) *
350. Due Process
Law review article:

Frederick J. Ludwig, The role of the prosecution in a fair trial, 41 Minn. L. Rev. 602-20 (April 1957).

351. Delay in arraignment
352. Grand Jury procedures
353. Confessions

353.2. Delli Paoli v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) (352 U.S. 232.) Pet. convicted in joint trial on fedl. charge of conspiring to deal unlawfully in alcohol. Main issue on appeal: admission at trial of confession of co-Def. CA affirmed; U.S.S.C. affirmed (5-4), holding not reversible error to admit such confession, made after termination of alleged conspiracy, where trial ct. instructs jury confession may be considered only against confessor, other evidence against Pet. being sufficient to sustain conviction. Dissent: Trial Ct. instruction futile and inadequate legal protection to Defs. against whom such confession should not tell.
354. Unfair press releases
355. Perjured testimony

355.2. Landeros v. New Jersey. (DC N.J.) *
355.4. Sobell v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 43. CA 2 affirmed trial ct. denial of motion for new trial. Petition for cert. pending.
355.5. U. S. v. Hicks, et ano. (ND Ga., CR #4506.) Defs., charged with rape, moved to have Gov't. turn over copies of FBI evidence prior to trial, under U.S.S.C. decision in Jencks, 291.1. Judge Hooper granted motion. Jury acquitted. Frank M. Gleason, Esq., 102 Howard St., Rossville, Ga.; E. J. Clower, Esq., 426½ Broad St., Rome, Ga.
356. Courts martial
357. Naturalization proceedings
358. Denaturalization proceedings
Case notes on

U. S. v. Costello, 144 F. Supp. 779 (SD NY 1956).

Evidence—Privilege against self-incrimination—Denaturalization proceedings, 26 Fordham L. Rev. 134-7 (Spring 1957); 10 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 854-6 (June 1957).

358.1. Trop v. Dulles. (U.S.S.C.) (352 U.S. 1023.) For facts, see II DOCKET 19, 43, 59. June 24: U.S.S.C. ordered reargument in Fall.
358.2. Diaz-Estrata v. Press. (SD Calif.) *
358.3. Matter of Bean. (ND Calif., S. Div.) *
358.4. Zuskar v. U. S. (CA 7, #11718.) *
358.5. Budzileni v. U. S. For facts, see II DOCKET 43. Cite: 352 U.S. 1004.
358.6. Nishikawa v. Dulles. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 43. June 24: U.S.S.C. ordered reargument in Fall.
358.7. Perez v. Brownell. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 43. June 24: U.S.S.C. ordered reargument in Fall.
359. Loyalty hearings
See 251 and 268.
360. Speedy and Public Trial
Case note:

Criminal law—Publicity of proceedings—Courtroom barred to public, 6 Catholic Univ. L. Rev. 175-9 (May 1957).

360.1. In re Baird. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App., San Francisco.) *
360.2. Brown v. Hoblitzell, Sheriff. (Ky. Ct. of App., #V-59-55.) Def. convicted of negligent homicide and intoxication (7 misdemeanors) in fatal motor vehicle accident before trial commr. appointed by Co. judge to hear evidence, make recommendation to judge under Ky. law. At original hearing, Def. treated hearing as preliminary examination on lodged felony charge; Commr. treated it as trial on misdemeanor charges. No appeal taken. Later habeas corpus
- 78 -

proceeding brought to void conviction for denials of due process through: (1) failure to make clear nature of original hearing; (2) Ky. Quarterly Ct. system, permitting judge to act without having heard witnesses or formed opinion as to their credibility, and without transcript. Cir. Ct. and Ct. of App. upheld conviction. Petition for rehearing pending.

Robert W. Zollinger, Esq., Realty Bldg., Louisville, Ky. Amicus appearance by Am. Civil Liberties Union, by Louis Lusky, Esq., 901 Hoffman Bldg., Louisville, Ky.

370. Counsel
371. Federal cases
372. State cases

372.1. Henderson v. Michigan (CA 6.) *
372.2. Chessman v. Teets, Warden. (U.S.S.C., #893.) (350 U.S. 3, 239 F. 2d 205.) 1948: Def. convicted in Calif. on multicount indictment, including kidnapping for purposes of robbery; death sentence. In automatic appeal, Def., refusing assigned counsel, represented self at trial, during which, stenographer died. Def. made 200 corrections in transcript, prepared by second steno but protested its incorrectness. Ct. allowed 80 corrections, settled record upon which appeal heard and conviction affirmed by Calif. Sup. Ct. In one of several writs by Def., he challenged validity of trial and sentence because of improper and fraudulent record on appeal. U.S.S.C., overruling DC and CA 9, ordered hearing on application for writ. DC found no fraud, dismissed writ; CA 9 affirmed. June 10: U.S.S.C. reversed, held due process under 14th Amdt. required Def. be afforded full hearing and counsel at settlement of record where, under circumstances, possibilities of garbled and incorrect version existed; ordered DC to sustain writ unless Calif. within reasonable time proceeded to settle record in accordance with due process.

George T. Davis, Esq., San Francisco.

373. Indirect restrictions

373.1. Re Gladstein. (DC Hawaii.) *
373.2. Re Bouslog. (CA 9, #15,109.) *
373.3. Re Bouslog. (DC Hawaii, Misc. #649.) *

See Sharp, 501.5

380. Confrontation

380.1. Re Radeka. (A 4781720—Detroit, Immigration and Naturalization Service.) Non-citizen arrested for deportation in 1955 for membership or affiliation with Communist Party. Only Gov't. witness testified by deposition that he knew Resp. as member of Party during 1932-1938, identified recent photo of her. Resp. testified in her own behalf, denying she knew witness, contradicting his testimony, introducing two photographs from 1932-1938 period, which Hearing Officer held not sufficiently similar "for identification required in these proceedings." Proceedings terminated; charge not sustained.

Morton Leitson, Esq., 804 Detroit St., Flint, Michigan.

381. Criminal cases
382. Civil cases
390. Jury Trials (see also 510)

390.2. Reid, Sup't. of Jail v. Covert; Kinsella, Warden v. Krueger. (U.S.S.C..) (351 U. S. 470, 487.) For facts, see I DOCKET 60, 80, 98. Both Defs. had been tried by military courts for murder of their soldier-husbands, one in Eng., one in Japan. Jurisdiction for trials claimed under Art. 2 (11) Uniform Code of Military Justice (50 USC). 1955 Term: U.S.S.C. held civilian accompanying armed forced overseas subject to military trial. 1956 Term: U.S.S.C. reversed earlier decisions, sustained Pets'. writs, held convictions void, Defs. entitled to civilian trials. Four Justices held Art. III, Sec. 2 of U.S. Constitution, and 5th and 6th Amdts. apply to citizens who accompany armed forces but are not part of them, requiring civil, not military, trials. Two Justices limited their reversal to capital offenses committed by military personnel's family dependents accompanying them abroad.

Frederick Bernays Wiener, Esq., Washington, D.C.

400. Excessive Bail; Parole Conditions
401. Amount of bail
402. Conditions imposed
410. Cruel and Unusual Punishment
411. Criminal cases

411.2. U. S. v. U. S. v. Winston. (U.S.S.C.) (241 F. 2d 631.) For facts, see II DOCKET 21, 44, 60. May 27: U.S.S.C. granted cert.
411.3. Thompson v. U. S. (SD NY.) Def. convicted of violation of Smith Act in 1949 (Dennis, et al. v. U. S.) failed to surrender for 3-yr. sentence. 1953: arrested; convicted for contempt for failure to surrender; sentence 4 yrs. Issues same as in Green and Winston, 411.2, see II DOCKET 21. June 19: after serving 17 mths. of contempt sentence, Fedl. Judge Palmieri released Def. on $25,000 bond, pending appeal, under U.S.S.C. grant of cert. in Green and Winston.
411.4. Massachusetts v. Pudeator, et al. (Massachusetts General Court.) Feb. 1957. Enacted by both branches of Mass. legislature, signed by Gov.: "Be it enacted * * * the several indictments, convictions, judgments and attainders for witchcraft against one Ann Pudeator and all other persons obtained in the special court of oyer and terminer at Salem in the county of Essex in the year one thousand six hundred and ninety-two, and not heretofore reversed and declared null and void, be and hereby are reversed and declared to be null and void to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever, as if no such indictments, convictions, judgments and attainders had ever been had, returned or entered."
412. Extradition

412.3. New York ex rel. Reid v. Ruthazer, Warden. (NY Sup. Ct., App. Div., 1st Dept.) *
413. Civil cases

413.1. DeSilva v. TWA. (SD NY, #99198.) *
490. Miscellaneous Due Process
- 79 -


Law review article:

Alan F. Westin, John Marshall Harlan and the constitutional rights of Negroes: The Transformation of a Southerner, 66 Yale L. J. 637-710 (Apr. 1957).

500. Elections
501. Racial discrimination

501.1. Allen v. Merrell, Clerk, Duchesne Co. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 22, 60. Apr. 22: U.S.S.C. vacated judgment of Utah S. Ct.
501.2. Ivy v. Cole, Registrar, Halifax Co. (ED N.C., Wilson Div., #610—Civ.) *
501.3. Edwards, et al. v. Registrar, Northampton Co. (ED N.C.) Pls.-Negro women denied registration when they mispronounced and could not define some words in U.S. Constitution. Def. gave "literacy" test under new N.C. statute. Pls. seek permanent injunction against test being used as condition for registration. Pending.
501.4. Reddix v. Lucky, Registrar, Ouchita Parish. (WD La., #5733.) Pl.-Negro's registration challenged under La. statute requiring cancellation of registration upon failure of challenged person to appear within given time. Pl. did not appear, altho qualified; nor did he reapply for registration. Action for declaratory judgment dismissed for failure to state cause of action and exhaust administrative remedies, but deferred for 60 days to give Pl. opportunity to re-register.
501.5. Sharp v. Lucky, Register, Ouchita Parish. (WD La., #5734.) Pl.-Negro lawyer sued for damages based on refusal of Def.-Register to show him the registration card of his client. Cards of Negro voters kept in another room. Ct. dismissed complaint because it involved infringement of Pl.'s right to practice law, a state-controlled privilege. Ct. found also no basis for enjoining Registrar from referring Negro voters to room where their cards were kept, asserting that law does not prevent segregation of inanimate objects.
502. Political discrimination

502.3. Christian Nationalist Party, et al. v. Jordan, Calif. Secy. of State. (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Co., #669214.) *
510. Juries
511. Federal employees
512. Racial discrimination

512.1. Reyes v. Arthur Tickle Eng. Works. (NY App. Div., 2d Dept.) In suit for damages, trial ct. set aside verdict for Def. on ground that Def's. counsel's summation to jury was prejudicial because of his reference to witness for Pl. as a "Puerto Rican, the same as the Pl." Verdict reinstated on appeal. Leave to prosecute appeal to Ct. of App. in forma pauperis granted.
513. Economic discrimination
514. Political discrimination
515. Discrimination against women
520. Education
521. Challenge to unequal facilities

521.1. Holland v. Bd. of Public Instruction (Palm Beach). (SD Fla., #7161 M.) For facts, see II DOCKET 22, 61. May 8-9: tried before ct. without jury; decision reserved.
522. Suits to enforce integration

522.Ark2. Matthews, et al. v. Launius, et al. (Bearden Dist.) (WD Ark., Civ. #570.) *
522.Dela1. Jackson, et al. v. Buchanan, Members of Dela. Bd. of Educ. and Bd. of Educ. and Bd. of Trustees, et al. (Christiana School Dist.) (DC Dela., Civ. #1815.) *
522.Dela2. Evans, et al. v. Buchanan, et al. (Milford). (DC Dela., Civ. #1817.) *
522.Dela3. Holloman, et al. v. Buchanan, et al. (Milton). (DC Dela., Civ. #1819.) *
522.Dela4. Coverdale, et al. v. Buchanan, et al. (Greenwood.) (DC Dela., Civ. #1818.) *
522.Dela5. Creighton, et al. v. Buchanan, et al. (Laurel). (DC Dela., Civ. #1820.) *
522.Dela6. Denson, et al. v. Buchanan, et al. (Seaford). (DC Dela., Civ. #1821.) *
522.Dela7. Oliver, Jr., et al. v. Buchanan, et al. (Clayton). (DC Dela., Civ. #1822.) *
522.Dela8. Staten, et al. v. Buchanan, et al. (Milford). (DC Dela., Civ. #1817.) *
522.Fla1. Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Bd. of Control of Fla. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 23, 61. Relator's appeal to U.S.S.C. pending.
522.Fla2. Gibson, et al. v. Dade Co. Bd. of Public Instruction, et al. (CA 5, #16482.) For facts, see II DOCKET 23, 61. May 22: heard and submitted.
522.Ga2. Hunt, et al. v. Arnold, Ga. State School of Business Adm. (ND Ga., Atlanta Div., #5781.) *
522.Ky1. Mitchell v. Bd. of Educ. (Hopkins Co.) (WD Ky., #708.) *
522.Ky2. Gordon et al. v. Collins, et al. (Webster Co.) (WD Ky., #720.) *
522.Ky3. Garnett, et al. v. Oakley, et al. (Union Co.) (WD Ky., #721.) *
522.Ky4. Dishman, et al. v. Archer, Supt. Public Schools. (Scott Co.) (ED Ky., Lexington, #1213.) *
522.Ky5. Green, et al. v. Bd. of Educ. (McCracken Co.) (WD Ky., Paducah Div., #903.) *
522.Ky6. Wilburn, et al. v. Holland, Supt., Fulton City Schools, et al. (WD Ky., Paducah Div., #910.) *
522.La1. Bush, Jr., et al. v. Orleans Parish School Bd., et al. (U.S.S.C., #980.) For facts, see II DOCKET 23, 62. June

18: U.S.S.C. denied petition for cert., leaving standing CA 5 and DC rulings against constitutionality of La. statutes.

- 80 -

522.La2. Hall, et al. v. St. Helena Parish School Bd., et al. (ED La., Civ. #1068.) *
522.La3. Angel, et al. v. La. State Bd. of Educ., et al. (ED La., Baton Rouge Div., Civ. #1658.) *
522.La4. Davis, Jr. et al. v. E. Baton Rouge Parish School Bd., et al. (ED La., Baton Rouge Div., Civ. #1662.) *
522.La5. Tureaud v. Bd. of Supervisors, La. State Univ. and Agric. and Mech. Coll., et al. (CA 5.) *
522.La6. Williams, et al. v. Prather, et al. (WD La., 5000 Civ.) *
522.La7. Dudley v. Bd. of Supervisors, La. State Univ. (CA 5.) For facts, see II DOCKET 62. Def's. appeal pending.
522.La8. Bailey v. La. State Bd. of Educ. (CA 5.) For facts, see II DOCKET 62. Def's. appeal pending.
522.La9. Lark v. La. State Bd. of Educ. (CA 5.) For facts, see II DOCKET 62. Def's. appeal pending.
522.Md2. Moore, Jr., et al. v. Bd. of Educ. (Harford Co.) (DC Md., Civ. #9105.) For facts, see II DOCKET 24, 46, 62. June 20: Ct. decided for Pls., enjoined Def.-Bd. from refusing to admit Pls. "to whatever school would be appropriate for them if they were white."
522.NC2. Covington, et al. v. Edwards, Supt. of Schools, et al. (Montgomery Co.) (MD N. Caro., Rockingham Div., Civ. #323.) *
522.NC3. Royster, et al. v. Bradsher, et al. (Person Co.) (MD NC, Durham Div., #194.) Suit by Pls.-Negroes for permanent injunction ordering Defs. promptly to present plan for desegregation, hearing by 3-judge ct. Issues: constitutionality of N.C. Constitutional provisions re segregation, and Pearsall Plan. Feb. 4: case continued indefinitely.

M. Hugh Thompson, Esq., Durham, N.C.

Case note on:

Clemons v. Bd. of Educ., 228 F. 2d 853 (CA 6, 1956), cert. den. 350 U.S. 1006, I DOCKET #610.4, 18 Ohio State Law Jour. 143-46 (Winter 1957).

522.Okla1. Carr, et al. v. Cole, Pres., Earlsboro Independent School Dist., et al. (Pottawatomie Co.) (WD Okla, Civ. #7355.) 4 Pls.-Negroes sought immediate admission to public schools previously all-white. Jan. 17: Ct. after trial ruled for Pls., granted permanent injunction against Defs. Pls. entered Def.-school Jan. 21, 1957.

Albert Alexander, Esq., 1501½ NE 10th St., Oklahoma City; U. Simpson Tate, Esq., 4207 S. Oakland Ave., Dallas, Texas.

522.Okla2. Brown, et al. v. Long, Pres., Morris Independent School Dist., et al. (Okmulgee Co.) (ED Okla, Civ. #4245.) 26 Pls.-Negroes filed suit for injunction to prevent segregation in public high school. Pls'. motion for summary judgment and Defs'. motion to dismiss pending.

Albert Alexander, Esq., 1501½ NE 10th St., Oklahoma City; U. Simpson Tate, Esq., 4207 S. Oakland Ave., Dallas, Texas.

522.Okla3. Simms, et al. v. Hudson, Pres., Preston Independent School Dist., et al. (Okmulgee Co.) (ED Okla, #4246.) Facts and issues similar to Brown, 522.Okla2, except that Pls. seek admission to all-white school in Fall 1957, some Pls. not having formally applied for admission in Fall 1956. Pending on Pls'. and Defs'. motions.

Albert Alexander, Esq., 1501½ NE 10th St., Oklahoma City; U. Simpson Tate, Esq., 4207 S. Oakland Ave., Dallas, Texas.

522.Okla4. Bailey, et al. v. Hodge, Hall, Supt., Okla. School for Deaf, et al. (WD Okla., #7441-Civ.) Pl.-10 yr. old Negro girl brought action on behalf of herself, as deaf mute, and all others similarly situated, for injunction to prevent Defs. from rejecting her application for Okla. School for Deaf. Pending.

Albert Alexander, Esq., 1501½ NE 10th St., Oklahoma City; U. Simpson Tate, Esq., 4207 S. Oakland Ave., Dallas, Texas.

522.Pa1. In re Girard's Estate. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 62. Apr. 29: U.S.S.C. per curiam reversed. June 28: Pa. S. Ct. directed Orphans' Ct. to order Girard College to comply with decision, i.e. to admit poor Negro male orphans, as well as poor white male orphans.

Case note:

3 Wayne L. Rev. 143-6 (Spring 1957).

522.SC1. Briggs v. Elliott. (Clarendon Co.) (ED S.C., #2657.) *
522.Tenn2. Booker, et al. v. State of Tennessee Board of Education, et al. (U.S.S.C., #940.) For facts, see II DOCKET 25, 46, 62. May 20: U.S.S.C. denied cert., leaving standing CA 6 decision requiring desegregation without delay.
522.Tex3. Whitmore v. Stilwell, et al. (DC Tex., Tyler Div.) For facts, see II DOCKET 25. Case concluded with 1956 permanent injunction against Def.-College officials discriminating against Negroes re admission.
522.Tex4. Jackson, et al. v. McDonald, pres., Lamar State College of Technology, et al. (CA 5.) For facts, see II DOCKET 25, 46. May 17: case dismissed by CA 5, leaving standing DC decision against Pls.
522.Tex5. Borders, et al. v. Rippy, et al. (CA 5, #16483.) *
522.Tex6. Hernandez, et al. v. Driscoll Consolidated Independent School Dist., et al. (Nueces Co.) (DC Tex, Houston, #1384.) For facts, see II DOCKET 46; (correction of report at 62) : Judgment entered declaring Def's. separate grouping of students of Mexican extraction is arbitrary and unreasonable because it is directed at group as a class and is not based upon individual capacities, despite Def's. claim grouping based on language handicap. Ct. denied injunction sought by Defs. in their counterclaim requiring parents not to permit their children to associate and play with children who do not speak English.
522.Tex7. Ross v. Rogers, Pres., Houston Independent School Dist. (DC Tex., Houston, #10,444.) Pl.-Negro child seeking injunction to prevent continued segregation in Houston public schools, specifically seeking admission of Pl. to nearby all-white school. Heard and submitted, briefs filed in June.

Henry E. Doyle, Esq., 618 Prairie Ave., Houston, Texas.

- 81 -

522.Va1. Davis v. County School Bd. (Prince Edward Co.) (CA 4.)*
522.Va2. Corbin, et al. v. School Bd. (Pulaski Co.) (WD Va., Roanoke, #341 Civ.)*
522.Va3. Atkins, et al. v. School Bd., et al. (Newport News). (CA 4.) For facts, see II DOCKET 25, 46, 63. June 11: Def's. appeal heard and submitted.
522.Va4. Beckett, et al. v. School Bd. (Norfolk.) (CA 4.) For facts, see II DOCKET 25, 46, 63. June 11: Def's. appeal heard and submitted.
522.Va5. Allen, et al. v. School Bd. (Charlottesville.) (WD Va., #51.)*
522.Va6. Thompson, et al. v. School Bd. (Arlington.) (ED Va., #1341.)*
522.Va7. DeFebio v. Richmond Placement Bd. (Fairfax Co.) (Va. Sup. Ct. of App.) Pl.-white mother refused to sign placement applications for 2 sons "as matter of conscience" alleging purpose of placement law was to prevent equal education, regardless of race. Pls.' sons therefore suspended from public school. Pl. suing for readmission of sons. Issues: constitutionality of Va. Pupil Placement Law; action deprives children of constitutionally-protected right to attend public schools; action forces children to violate Va. compulsory school attendance law; Va. constitution gives sole power over education to State and local school bds., not pupil placement bds. Heard and submitted June 10.
523. Suits to prevent integration
Case note on:

Brewer v. Hoxie School Dist. No. 46, 238 F. 2d 91 (CA 8, 1956), I DOCKET #610.56, in 70 Harv. L. Rev. 1299-1302 (May 1957).

523.Ark1. Shackleford, et al. v. Vance, Ch., Hoxie School Bd., et al. (Ark. Sup. Ct.)*
523.Ky1. Grubbs, et al. v. Gov. Chandler, et al. (Franklin Co. Cir. Ct.)*
523.Md2. Heintz, et al. v. Bd. of Educ. of Howard Co. (formerly listed as Williams v. School Bd.) (Md. Ct. of App., #179.) For facts, see II DOCKET 26. May 11: Md. Ct. of App. affirmed judgment of lower ct. dismissing Pl.-white parents mandamus action to prevent integration of public schools.
523.Tenn1. Davidson, et al. v. Cope, et al. (Tenn. Ct. of App.) For facts, see II DOCKET 26. Dec., 1956: App't's. dismissed their appeal.
530. Housing
Law review note:

Racial residential segregation—Dead or alive? 29 Rocky Mtn. L. Rev. 223-231 (Feb. 1957).

531. Public

531.1. Queen Cohen v. Savannah Housing Authority, et al. (formerly Heyward v. Savannah H'g. Auth.) (SD Ga., Sav. Div.) For facts, see II DOCKET 26, 47. May 20: trial concluded; judgment reserved.
531.5. Eleby v. Louisville Municipal Housing Authority. (WD Ky., Louisville Div., #3240.) For facts, see II DOCKET 63. May 24: Trial Judge signed Order upon pre-trial conference approving Def's. proposed plan of integration.
531.6. Shervington v. Pelham Hall Apts., Inc. (NY State Comm. Against Discrimination.)

and Pelham Hall Apts., Inc. v. NY State Comm. Against Discrimination (Sup. Ct., Westchester Co.) SCAD complaint charges Pl.-Negro denied apartment by Def.-owners of FHA-aided housing project, in violation of 1955 law, Sec. 292, Exec. Law. Hearing stayed by temporary injunction obtained by Def. to test constitutionality of law. App. Div., 2d Dept. vacated injunction; hearing June 19. SCAD hearing date to be set.

532. Private

532.1. S. End Fed'l Svgs. & Loan v. Roan, Braden and Wade. (Jeff. Cir. Ct., Chanc. Branch, 2d Div., Ky.) For facts, see II DOCKET 27, 63. Pl's. mortgage paid in full by 3d party; Def. Wade repairing home for immediate occupancy.
532.2. Ming v. Horgan, et al. (Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento Co., #97130.) For facts, see II DOCKET 27. Sept. 10: trial date.
532.3. Beddoe v. Southeast Realty Bd., et al. (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles, #SG C 1050.) For facts, see II DOCKET 27. Pre-trial: Oct. 15, 1957; trial: Nov. 18.
532.6. Venable v. Creve Coeur, et al. (ED Mo., #57 C45(2).) For facts, see II DOCKET 63. May 10: all motions heard and submitted.
532.7. Robinson v. Mansfield. (Super. Ct., Pima, Ariz.) Pls.-Negroes brought action to quiet title to property purchased by them as to which Defs. were attempting to establish right to reversion as prior owners under clauses providing for reversion on sale or lease to Negroes. Judgment for Pls.
540. Transportation
541. Interstate

541.2. Baldwin, et al. v. Morgan. (ND Ala., #8634.) Pls.-Negro couple were arrested while sitting in waiting room of railroad station marked "Interstate and White Passengers", and released without charge. Action for declaratory judgment dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state controversy.
542. Intrastate

542.3. Flemming v. S. Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (CA 4.)*
542.4. Evers, et al. v. Dwyer, Comm'r of Public Service of City of Memphis, et al. (WD Tenn., Civ. #2903.)*
542.6. Virginia v. Ritter. (Richmond Hustings Ct.)*
542.7. Inter-Civic Council of Tallahassee, Inc., et al. v. City of Tallahassee. (Cir. Ct., Leon Co., Law #8502.)*
542.8. Georgia v. Rev. Borders, et al. (Ala. Crim. Ct.)*
550. Miscellaneous Facilities
- 82 -

551. Recreational

551.Cal1. McClain, by guardian ad litem v. City of S. Pasadena. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App., 2d Dist.)*
551.Cal2. Manley v. Barber Shop. (Stockton Municipal Ct.) Pl.-Negro refused service in barber shop operated by Mexican-American. Judge Dozier awarded $200 damages because difficult to overcompensate for "humiliation and anguish of a public reminder that many of his fellow citizens consider him and persons of his color not fully human." Def's. actions held motivated by business fear, not personal bigotry; Def's. refusal had been courteous and apologetic.
551.Fla1. City of Petersburg v. Alsup. (U.S.S.C.) (282 F. 2d 830.) U.S.S.C. denied Pl's. petition for cert. re CA 5 affirming decision of DC requiring admission of Negroes to municipal golf course.
551.Fla2. Moorhead, et al. v. City of Fort Lauderdale. (SD Fla., #6820-M-Civ.) Ct. issued permanent injunction requiring City officials to admit Negro-Pls. to municipal golf course without regard to color or race. Ct. stated: financial loss to city not a reason for denying constitutional rights.
551.NY1. Frinkle, et ano. v. Union News Co. (NYC Muni. Ct.) 2 Negro Pls.-dining car waiters sued Def. for damages for refusal to serve them in restaurant in railroad terminal. Feb. 1957: Pls. awarded $200 each, on finding by jury that Def. had failed to instruct waitresses not to discriminate on basis of race.

And see 541.2.

551.NC1. North Carolina v. Simkins, et al. (N.C. Sup. Ct.)*
551.Tenn1. Crutcher v. Hayes. (Mid. Dist. Tenn., Civ. #1344.) For facts, see II DOCKET 28. Jan. 16. Ct. granted Pls. motion for summary judgment, allowing reasonable time for Defs. to make necessary arrangements to comply with desegregation of golf course as ordered. Apr. 16: judgment for Pls.
551.Va1. Tate, et al. v. Va. Dept. of Conservation and Development. *
552. Others

552.Mich1. Russau, et ano. v. Restlawn Memorial Park Corp., et al. (Grand Rapids Super. Ct., Law #5279.)*
552.Va1. Bissell v. Virginia. (Va. Ct. of App.) For facts, see II DOCKET 48. Appeal to be argued in Sept.
560. Family Matters
561. Marriage and divorce
562. Adoption

562.1. In re Petition of Ellis. (Fla. Cir. Ct.) For facts, see II DOCKET 64. Je. 11: Mass. Public Welfare Comm. filed with Fla. Public Welfare Dep't. 12 reasons why the Ellises should not be permitted to adopt Hildy. Jy. 11: Ct. granted Ellis' motion for adoption.
563. Custody

563.5. Ondrejka v. Ondrejka. (Wis. Sup. Ct.)*
563.6. Fountaine v. Fountaine. (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., 2d Div.) Decision of lower ct. awarding custody of children to Negro father divorced from white mother reversed on ground lower ct. erred in basing decision on finding that children had predominantly Negro racial characteristics.
564. Miscellaneous

564.1. Maryland v. Howard. (Balt. Crim. Ct.) For facts see II DOCKET 28-9. Apr. 22: Ct. dismissed indictment, held statute unconstitutional as violation of equal protection clause of 14th Amdt.
570. Employment
571. Racial discrimination

571.1. Brooks, et al. v. School Dist. of Moberly, et al. (ED Mo., #551.)*
571.2. Dixon, et al. v. Barrows, et al. (Mo. Cir. Ct., 13th Jud. Dist., #213220, Div. 5.)*
571.3. Wise v. Casaway, et al. (ED Ark., Civ. #2736.)*
571.4. Jeanpierre v. State Commission Against Discrimination. (NY Sup. Ct., App. Div., 1st Dept.)*
571.6. Ross, et ano. v. Ebert, Bus. Agent, Bricklayers Union, et al. (Wis. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see II DOCKET 48. Apr. 9: Wis. S. Ct. affirmed dismissal of Pls. action, holding Wis. statute does not require enforcement of Wis. Ind. Comm. recommendation that Def.-Union admit Pls.-Negro applicants. Fairchild, J. dissenting:

"To be the butt of social discrimination is unpleasant in high degree, but to be denied the economic opportunity to work out one's destiny as best he can, solely because of a racial or religious difference, impairs the very substance of citizenship itself. Perhaps the degree of the impairment is so great and the character of the rights impaired so fundamental that the wrong must be recognized and remedied by the judicial branch even in the absence of action by the legislature."

571.8. Franklin v. Trans World Airlines. (N.Y. State Comm. Against Discrimination.) Complaint charges Pl.-Negro woman had been refused employment as stewardess by Def. because of her race. Investigation by Comm. supports complaint; conciliation efforts having failed, hearing July 9.

J. Edward Conway, Investigating Commr., SCAD, 270 Broadway, NYC.

571.9. Oliphant, et al. v. Bro. Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, et al. (ND Ohio, #31464 Civ.) 14 Southern Negro railroad firemen seek injunction to invalidate Def.-Union's rule limiting membership to whites, in effect. Pls. contend they are not adequately represented by Def.-union in collective bargaining. June 3-7: trial before Ct. without jury. July 19: briefs due; decision awaited.

Walter C. Kelley, Jr., Esq., 1200 Natl. City Bank Bldg., Cleveland; Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Esq., 1631 K St. NW, and John Silard, Esq., both of Washington, D.C.

And see Barnes, 263.3.

580. Civil Actions under Civil Rights Law Not Otherwise Covered
590. Criminal Prosecutions under Civil Rights Law

590.2. Atterbury v. Ragen, Warden. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see II DOCKET 64. Petition for cert. pending.