*1 1024 judgment against

the the Sheriff could be in reversed and that no provide § case 1988 would authorization for an of award against I petitioners. fees the think of Because the award successfully such defending appeal fees for an of a collateral nothing to with having rights order do civil is not authorized by stage 1988 this of I § at interim the litigation, dissent from petition the denial of the of for a writ certiorari. Department

No. 80-924. Shell et of Oil Co. al. v. Energy et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice took part no in the consideration or of decision Stewart this petition.

Justice Powell, dissenting. Energy

The Depart- Information Administration of the of Energy ment (DOE) compels 27 energy-producing com- panies, including petitioners, response to submit in to data 7,200 individual requests opera- for information about their tions. These concern virtually aspects data all of these com- panies’ Upon finances. request, DOE releases submitted data compulsion under this to departments other federal and agencies, including the offices in the Departrrient of Jus- and tice the Federal charged Trade Commission with enforc- the ing antitrust laws.

The dissemination of this extraordinary volume of data prosecutorial to those Government a serious agencies raises question, agencies as these thereby may obtain information statutory that and constitutional bar safeguards would them obtaining directly from in actions. antitrust enforcement The rights likelihood that potential of antitrust defendants will be violated increases more increasingly as DOE demands from companies data subject regulation to then dis- its and seminates the prosecutorial information to Con- agencies. given has gress to investigative power appears DOE an that be excessively intrusive as well as in its own burdensome But that right. power discovery should not become a blanket authority for the use of Department the of Justice the and

1025 Federal without the safeguards provided Trade Commission by against legal rights. law abuse of *2 question of the of

Because seriousness the whether Con- gress by intended that information put DOE be to obtained use, petition I would for grant such the certiorari and set the case for plenary consideration. Chaney

No. 80-947. Ct. Crim. App. v. Oklahoma. Okla.;

No. 80-1204. Sup. Ct. Neb.; Anderson v. Nebraska. No. 80-5862. Hochstein Sup. Neb.; Ct. v. Nebraska. and

No. 80-6127. McDowell Sup. Ct. North Carolina. v. N. C. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 80-947, 612 P. 2d 269; 80-5862, 51, Nos. 80-1204 and 207 Neb. 296 N. W. 440; 2d 279, No. 301 N. C. 271 S. E. 80-6127, 2d 286. Justice Brennan dissenting. and Justice Marshall, to our Adhering the views that death in penalty is all cir- cruel cumstances and punishment by unusual prohibited the Eighth and Fourteenth Gregg Amendments, Georgia, v. 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we grant would certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases. Oldag

No. 80-972. v. Catholic Charities of the Dio cese of Galveston-Houston et al. Sup. Ct. Tex. Cer- tiorari denied. Justice Brennan, and Jus- White, Justice tice Marshall grant would certiorari. Appalachian

No. 80-1137. Insurance et Co. al. v. United States;

No. Aid 80-1145. et Insurance al. v. United Co. States; and

No. 80-1178. Aetna Co. et Insurance v. United al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari States. denied. Stew- Justice took no part in the art or peti- consideration decision of these Reported tions. below: 628 F. 2d 1201.