DUGGER, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. PORTER
No. 86-1507
C. A. 11th Cir.
919
TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH & ACTION CENTER ET AL. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL.
No. 86-1371
C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied. JUSTICE SCALIA took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
NEW YORK ET AL. v. THOMAS, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.
No. 86-1373
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO ET AL. v. THOMAS, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.
No. 86-1374
C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied. JUSTICE POWELL and JUSTICE SCALIA took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD CO. v. BELL ET AL.
No. 86-1475
Ct. App. Okla.
Certiorari denied.
JUSTICE WHITE, dissenting.
This case presents the question whether a state court may proceed to adjudicate a case after a removal petition has been filed in federal court. Respondents in this case brought a negligence action against petitioner and an individual defendant in state court. After seven days of trial, the trial court dismissed the individual defendant. Petitioner then filed a removal petition in federal court, alleging diversity of citizenship. The state trial court proceeded despite the removal petition and the jury rendered a verdict against petitioner. Subsequently, the District Court held that the case was not properly removed because the individual defendant was dismissed on the merits and not, as petitioner contended, with the consent of the plaintiffs. The District Court remanded the case and the state trial court entered judgment against petitioner on the basis of the previously rendered jury verdict.
The trial court and the Oklahoma Court of Appeals rejected petitioner‘s argument that the verdict against it is void under
The decision below conflicts with cases holding that when a case has been removed to federal court the state court lacks jurisdiction to act until the case is remanded. See, e. g., South Carolina v. Moore, 447 F. 2d 1067, 1072-1074 (CA4 1971); Mississippi Power Co. v. Luter, 336 So. 2d 753, 755 (Miss. 1976). I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict.
DEMOUCHETTE v. TEXAS
No. 86-6216
Ct. Crim. App. Tex.
TARVER v. ALABAMA
No. 86-6711
Sup. Ct. Ala.
SCHLUP v. MISSOURI
No. 86-6731
Sup. Ct. Mo.
TERRY v. PENNSYLVANIA
No. 86-6747
Sup. Ct. Pa.
JACKSON v. FLORIDA
No. 86-6795
Sup. Ct. Fla.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 86-6216, 731 S. W. 2d 75; No. 86-6711, 500 So. 2d 1256; No. 86-6731, 724 S. W. 2d 236; No. 86-6747, 513 Pa. 381, 521 A. 2d 398; No. 86-6795, 502 So. 2d 409.
JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.
Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.
MOORE v. BUTLER, WARDEN
No. 86-7013 (A-888)
C. A. 5th Cir.
Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to JUSTICE WHITE, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.
JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.
Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for writ of certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.