« ForrigeFortsett »
June 21, 1948. 334 U. S.
No. 256. PETERS v. UNITED STATES. C. C. A. 8th. Certiorari denied. Norman L. Meyers for petitioner. Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Quinn, Philip Elman, Robert S Erdahl and Irving S. Shapiro for the United States. Reported below: 160 F. 2d 858, 161 F.2d 940.
No. 812. McKEwBN v. McKEwen ET AL. C. C. A. 5th. Certiorari denied. Garner W. Green and P. Z. Jones for petitioner. Solicitor General Perlman for the United States, and S. M. Graham for Marjorie L. McKewen, respondents. Reported below: 165 F. 2d 761.
No. 408, Misc. CARMELo v. PENNSYLVANIA. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Certiorari denied.
No. 444, Misc. HALEY v. STEwART, WARDEN. Supreme Court of Missouri. Certiorari denied. Petitioner pro se. J. E. Taylor, Attorney General of Missouri, and Tyre W. Burton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
No. 466, Misc. RITCHIE (ARON) v. DRIER ET AL. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Certiorari denied. Robert C. Bell, Jr. for petitioner. Bernard J. Gallagher and M. Walton Hendry for Drier; Richard L. Merrick for Aron; and Soterios Nicholson for Stern Brothers et al., respondents. Reported below: 83 U. S. App. D. C. — 165 F. 2d 238.
No. 504, Misc. Moss v. HUNTER, WARDEN. C. C. A. 10th. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 167 F. 2d 683.
No. 511, Misc. SoLIs v. CLEMMER, DIRECTOR. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
334 U. S. June 21, 1948.
Certiorari denied. Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General
No. 556, Misc. Jon Es v. Missouri. Supreme Court of Missouri. Certiorari denied.
No. 557, Misc. VolkMAN v. RAGEN, WARDEN. Supreme Court of Illinois. Certiorari denied.
No. 558, Misc. MURPHY v. RAGEN, WARDEN. Criminal Court of Cook County, Illinois. Certiorari denied.
No. 559, Misc. SHOTKIN Et Al. v. THOMAS A. Edison, INC. C. C. A. 10th. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 163 F.2d 1020.
No. 560, Misc. WEHR v. RAGEN, WARDEN. Circuit Court of Bureau County, Illinois. Certiorari denied.
No. 563, Misc. DENNIs v. RAGEN, WARDEN. Supreme Court of Illinois. Certiorari denied.
No. 564, Misc. Johnson v. HIATT, WARDEN. C. C. A. 5th. Certiorari denied. Petitioner pro se. Solicitor
General Perlman for respondent. Reported below: 167
No. 565, Misc. HAYES v. HUDSPETH, WARDEN. Supreme Court of Kansas. Certiorari denied.
No. 568, Misc. KILGALLEN v. NEw York. County Court of Queens County, New York. Certiorari denied.
No. 569, Misc. GRANT v. RAGEN, WARDEN. Criminal Court of Cook County, Illinois. Certiorari denied.
June 21, 1948. 334 U. S.
No. 570, Misc. BURNS v. ILLINois. Criminal Court of Cook County, Illinois. Certiorari denied.
Rehearing Denied. (See also No. 437, supra.)
No. 461. UNITED STATES v. Columbia STEEL Co. ET AL., ante, p. 495. Rehearing denied.
No. 544. UNITED STATES v. NATIONAL CITY LINEs, INC. ET AL., ante, p. 573. Rehearing denied.
No. 655. PHYLE v. DUFFY, WARDEN, ante, p. 431. Rehearing denied.
No. 697. ALKER ET AL. v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CoRPORATION, ante, p. 827. Rehearing denied.
Nos. 716 and 717. HAZELTINE Corporation v. KIRKPATRICK, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE, ante, p. 819. Rehearing denied.
No. 810. TINKof F v. ILLINois Ex REL. CHICAGo BAR Association ET AL., ante, p. 833. Rehearing denied. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
No. 326, Misc. O'Lough LIN v. PARKER, DEPUTY CoMMission ER, U. S. EMPLOYEEs’ CoMPENSATION CoMMISSION, 333 U. S. 868. Motion for leave to file a third petition for rehearing denied.
No. 500, Misc. Cole ET AL. v. NEw JERSEY, ante, p. 851. Rehearing denied.
No. 519, Misc. HARRIS v. CITY of NEw York, ante 836. Rehearing denied.
No. 528, Misc. IN RE PIERCE, ante, p. 831. Rehearing denied.
AMENDMENTS OF RULES.
It Is Ordered that paragraph 3 of Rule 38 of the Hides of this Court be amended to read as follows:
"3. Notice of the filing of the petition, together with a copy of the petition, printed record, and supporting brief shall be served by the petitioner on counsel for the respondent within ten days after the filing (unless enlarged by the court or a justice thereof), and due proof of service shall be filed with the clerk. If the United States, or an officer or agency thereof, is respondent, the service of the petition, record, and brief shall be made on the Solicitor General at Washington, D. C. Counsel for the respondent shall have thirty days (unless enlarged by the court or a justice thereof), after notice, within which to file forty printed copies of an opposing brief, conforming to Rules 26 and 27. The brief must bear the name of a member of the bar of this court at the time of filing."
It Is Ordered that paragraph 2 of Rule 41 of the Rules of this Court be amended to read as follows:
"2. Within thirty days after the petition, brief, and record are served (unless enlarged by the court or a justice thereof) the respondent may file with the clerk forty printed copies of an opposing brief, conforming to Rules 26 and 27. Upon the expiration of that period, or upon an express waiver of the right to file or the actual filing of such brief in a shorter time, the petition, briefs, and record shall be distributed by the clerk to the court for its consideration. (See Rule 38, par. 4 (a).)"
May 17, 1948.
AMENDMENTS OF ADMIRALTY RULES.
It Is Ordered that rules 51, 52, 53, and 54 of the Rules of Practice for the Courts of the United States in Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction be, and they are hereby, amended to read as follows:
Rule 51. Limitation of Liability—How Claimed.—The owner or owners of any vessel who shall desire to claim the benefit of limitation of liability provided for in the third and fourth sections of the Act of March 3, 1851, entitled "An Act to limit the liability of shipowners and for other purposes" (Sections 183 to 189 of Title 46 of the U. S. Code) as now or hereafter amended or supplemented, may file a petition in the proper District Court of the United States, as hereinafter specified. Such petition shall set forth the facts and circumstances on which limitation of liability is claimed, and pray proper relief in that behalf. It shall also state facts showing that the petition is filed in the proper district; the voyage on which the demands sought to be limited arose, with the date and place of its termination; the amount of all demands including all unsatisfied liens or claims of lien, in contract or in tort, arising on that voyage, so far as known to the petitioner, and what suits, if any, are pending thereon; whether the vessel was damaged, lost or abandoned, and, if so, when and where; the value of the vessel at the close of the voyage or, in case of wreck, the value of her wreckage, strippings or proceeds, if any, and where and in whose possession they are; and the amount of any pending freight recovered or recoverable. If any of the above particulars are not fully known to the petitioner, a statement of such particulars according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the petitioner shall be sufficient. With his petition the petitioner may, if he so elects, file