that certiorari should be granted. Reported below: 435 F. 2d 859.

υ.

No. 70–354. FOODEN ET AL. v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES OF ILLINOIS. Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Reported below: 48 Ill. 2d 580, 272 N. E. 2d 497.

No. 71-430. CRABTREE v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, WELLSTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Sup. Ct. Ohio.

. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.

No. 71-6259. McENTEGGART v. CATALDO ET AL. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Reported below: 451 F. 2d 1109.

No. 71-249. ORR V. TRINTER ET AL. C. A. 6th Cir. Motions of National Education Assn. and Board of Education of the City of Washington C. H., Ohio, for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Reported below: 444 F. 2d 128. Rehearing Granted. (See No. 204, October Term, 1970,

supra.)

STATEMENT SHOWING THE NUMBER OF CASES FILED, DISPOSED OF, AND REMAINING ON DOCKETS AT CONCLUSION OF OCTOBER TERMS—1969, 1970, AND 1971

Number of cases on dockets.-
Number disposed of during terms.

15
5

20
7

18 1,758 1,903 2,070 2,429 2,289 2,445 4,202 4,212
8 1,433 1,541 1,628 1,971 1,774 2,009 3,409 3,322

4,533
3,645

Cases argued during term

Number disposed of by full opinions
Number disposed of by per curiam opinions

Number set for reargument the following term
Cases granted review this term
Cases reviewed and decided without oral argument
Total cases to be available for argument at outset of following term

144
105
21
18
150
113
94

151
126
22

3
161
192
107

5
3 163
286
99

3 Includes A-483 and No. 9 Orig.

1 Includes No. 9 Orig. (pending) 2 Includes A-483 and No. 50 Orig.

JULY 11, 1972 INDEX

ACADEMIC CONFERENCES. See Constitutional Law, III, 1;

Immigration and Nationality Act; Judicial Review, 1.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM. See Constitutional Law, I, 5; III, 9;

Procedure, 1-2.

See Appeals, 1; Constitutional

ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBES.

Law, VII, 1; Jurisdiction.

ACCESS ROUTES. See Administrative Procedure, 1-5; Inter-

state Commerce Commission, 1-5; Judicial Review, 2–6.

ACCUMULATION OF INCOME. See Taxes, 1-3.

ACQUISITIONS. See Administrative Procedure, 1–5; Interstate

Commerce Commission, 1-5; Judicial Review, 2–6.
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. See Constitutional Law, I, 5;

Procedure, 3.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE. See also Interstate Com-

merce Commission, 1-5; Judicial Review, 2–6.
1. Line-haul carriers jointly acquiring control of switching rail-
road—Related application for trackage rights by one petitioner for
inclusion.—The denial of trackage rights to Southern Pacific (on the
ground that SP was “not entitled to serve Peninsula or Rivergate”)
should be reconsidered by the Interstate Commerce Commission in
conjunction with the reappraisal of the issues arising under $ 5 (2)
of the Interstate Commerce Act. Port of Portland v. United States,

p. 811.

2. Line-haul carriers petitioning for inclusion in control of switch-
ing railroad—ICC decision--Applicable legal principles.-In view
of uncertainties about the northern access to Portland's Rivergate
industrial complex-given the physical limitations of the present
facilities of Peninsula Terminal Co.—and the apparent fact that
physical operation over Peninsula into Rivergate was not at issue
here, approval of the ICC order, with its protective conditions, may
still be in the public interest, but the announced grounds for the
ICC decision do not comport with the applicable legal principles.
Port of Portland v. United States, p. 811.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE—Continued.

-.
3. Line-haul carriers petitioning for inclusion in joint purchase of
switching railroad—Market shares and existing traffic.-In stressing
the small share in Peninsula Terminal Co.'s traffic that Milwaukee
Railroad had before the Northern Lines Merger, the ICC ignored
any possible increase in that share after Condition 24 (a) of that
merger took effect. In announcing a principle of preserving the
market shares of the two railroads currently connecting with Penin-
sula, the ICC failed to explain why it was not taking into account
the potentially enormous traffic over Peninsula, should Peninsula
become the northern route into Portland's Rivergate industrial com-
plex. Port of Portland v. United States, p. 811.

4. Line-haul carriers seeking joint acquisition of switching rail-
road—Petitions for inclusion denied by ICC.-On the record in
this case (which is ambiguous with regard to many factual and
procedural issues) it has not been shown that the ICC's order
authorizing Union Pacific and Burlington Northern alone to acquire
control of the Peninsula Terminal Co. met the "public interest”
standard of $ 5 (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act. Port of Port-
land v. United States, p. 811.

5. Petitions for inclusion—Shifting market shares—Anticompetitive
effects.—The ICC's denial of inclusion of the Southern Pacific Trans-
portation Co. and the Milwaukee Railroad because their gain would
work a corresponding loss to Burlington Northern and Union Pacific
is not a proper approach under $ 5 (2) of the Interstate Commerce
Act, given the principle that the anticompetitive effects of any
$ 5 (2) transaction must be explicitly considered. Port of Portland
v. United States, p. 811.
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE. See Constitutional Law, V;

Evidence, 3.
ADMISSION OF ALIENS. See Constitutional Law, III, 1;

Immigration and Nationality Act; Judicial Review, 1.
ADVERSARY HEARINGS. See Constitutional Law, I, 1-2, 4;

Paroles, 1-3.
ADVISORY OPINIONS. See Constitutional Law, III, 3;

Justiciability.
AGREEMENTS TO CONCEAL FACTS. See Constitutional Law,

. ,
III, 8; Grand Juries, 4.
AIDE TO SENATOR. See Appeals, 2–3; Constitutional Law,

VII, 2–6; Grand Juries, 2–3, 5.

ALABAMA. See Confessions; Constitutional Law, IV, 1.
ALIBI DEFENSES. See Constitutional Law, I, 3; II, 1; Crim-

inal Law, 2-4; Evidence, 1-2; Procedure, 1.
ALIENS. See Constitutional Law, III, 1; Immigration and Na-

tionality Act; Judicial Review, 1.
ANONYMITY OF SOURCES. See Constitutional Law, III, 8;

Grand Juries, 4.
ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS. See Administrative Procedure,