Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

ORDERS

913

408 U.S.

June 26, 1972

well v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 304 (1940). In other words, the statute must be carefully drawn or be authoritatively construed to punish only unprotected speech and not be susceptible of applica

tion to protected expression.” Id., at 521–522. Unless we are to distort the doctrine of overbreadth into a verbal game of logic-chopping and sentence-parsing reminiscent of common-law pleading, it cannot fairly be said here that either the New Orleans ordinance, or the New Jersey statute as construed by the highest court of that State, could reasonably be thought "unduly to infringe the protected freedom,Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S., at 304.

I would dismiss these appeals for lack of a substantial federal question.

No. 70-5323. LEWIS v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. Appeal from Sup. Ct. La. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972).

MR. JUSTICE POWELL, concurring in the result.

Under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), the issue in a case of this kind is whether "fighting words” were used. Here a police officer, while in the performance of his duty, was called “g-- d--- m-----f-----” police.

If these words had been addressed by one citizen to another, face to face and in a hostile manner, I would have no doubt that they would be “fighting words.” But the situation may be different where such words are addressed to a police officer trained to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen. See Model Penal Code $ 250.1, Comments 14 (Tent. Draft No. 13,

[blocks in formation]

I see no genuine overbreadth problem in this case for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, ante, p. 903.

I would remand for reconsideration only in light of Chaplinsky.

[For dissenting opinion of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, see ante, p. 902.]

[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, see ante, p. 909.]

No. 71-6535. BROWN v. OKLAHOMA. Appeal from Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15 (1971), and Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972). Reported below: 492 P. 2d 1106.

MR. JUSTICE POWELL, concurring in the result.

The statute involved in this case is considerably broader than the statute involved in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, ante, p. 901, and it has not been given a narrowing construction by the Oklahoma courts. Moreover, the papers filed in this case indicate that the language for which appellant was prosecuted was used in a political meeting to which appellant had been invited to present the Black Panther viewpoint. In these circumstances language of the character charged might well have been anticipated by the audience.

These factors lead me to conclude that this case is significantly different from Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, supra. I therefore concur in the Court's disposition of

this case.

[For dissenting opinion of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, see ante, p. 902.]

[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, see ante, p. 909.]

ORDERS

915

408 U.S.

June 26, 1972

Certiorari Granted-Reversed. (See No. 71-5625, ante,

p. 229; and No. 71–6497, ante, p. 234.) Certiorari GrantedRemanded or Vacated and Re

manded. No. 70–5125. CLARK v. Boscow, INSTITUTION DIRECTOR. C. A. 4th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U. S. 245.

No. 70-5336. FARRELL v. SCHMIDT, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL. Sup. Ct. Wis. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U. S. 504.

No. 71–239. FERGUSON, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE v. UNITED STATES. Certiorari before judgment to C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Plamondon et al., Real Parties in Interest), 407 U. S. 297.

No. 71–1028. CAMPOPIANO v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Barker v. Wingo, Warden, 407 U. S. 514. Reported below: 446 F. 2d 869.

No. 71-5100. BACON v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case manded for further consideration in light of Gelbard v. United States, and United States v. Egan, ante, p. 41. Reported below: 446 F. 2d 667.

[blocks in formation]

No. 71-847. SAGLIMBENE V. UNITED STATES. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Barker v. Wingo, Warden, 407 U. S. 514.

No. 71-5040. McKENZIE v. DIRECTOR, PATUXENT INSTITUTION. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Petition for rehearing granted and order of November 22, 1971 [404 U. S. 979], denying petition for writ of certiorari vacated. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U. S. 245. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS would grant certiorari and reverse in light of McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, supra.

No. 71-5672. OLSEN v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gelbard v. United States, and United States v. Egan, ante, p. 41. Reported below: 446 F. 2d 912.

No. 71-6196. KELLEY v. KENTUCKY. Ct. App. Ky. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Barker v. Wingo, Warden, 407 U. S. 514. Reported below: 474 S. W. 2d 63.

No. 71–6337. FASANARO v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 2d Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Barker v. Wingo, Warden, 407 U. S. 514.

[blocks in formation]

No. 35, Orig. UNITED STATES v. MAINE ET AL. [Motion for leave to file bill of complaint granted, 395 U. S. 955.] Motion of Commonwealth of Massachusetts for a preliminary injunction denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.

No. 40, Orig. PENNSYLVANIA v. New YORK ET AL., 407 U. S. 206. It is ordered that the expenditures of John F. Davis as Special Master in the amount of $626.54 be approved. It is further ordered that the balance of advances made by the parties to meet expenses in the amount of $1,373.46 be retained by the Special Master and applied toward his compensation. It is further ordered that the total compensation for the Special Master be fixed at ten thousand five hundred dollars ($10,500) and that that amount, less the balance of the money advanced for expenses, shall be paid to him by Western Union out of the funds in its possession which are the subject of this suit and that Western Union be given credit for that amount divided pro rata among the parties who would otherwise be entitled to the money under the opinion and decree of this Court.

No. 50, Orig. VERMONT v. NEW YORK ET AL. [Motion to file bill of complaint granted, 406 U. S. 186.] It is ordered that Justice R. Ammi Cutter (retired) be, and he is hereby, appointed Special Master to conduct supplemental proceedings in this case. The Special Master shall have authority to fix the time and conditions for filing additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings, and authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The

« ForrigeFortsett »