No. 77-6409. CONRAD v. COMMERCE BANK OF KANSAS CITY, 436 U. S. 901;

No. 77-6457. BAMOND V. NEW YORK ET AL., 436 U. S. 910; and

No. 77-6657. CONRAD v. FIRST STATE BANK & TRUST CO., 436 U. S. 916. Petitions for rehearing denied.

INDEX

ACCESS TO WITNESSES' STATEMENTS IN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS. See Freedom of Information Act.
ACCUSED'S TERMINATION OF TRIAL. See Constitutional Law,
II, 1.

ACQUITTALS. See Constitutional Law, II, 2, 3.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE. See Freedom of Information Act.
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE. See Constitutional Law, III, 1.
ALARM LIMITS. See Patents.

“ALASKA HIRE” STATUTE. See Constitutional Law, V; Mootness.
ANTITRUST ACTS.

Clayton Act-Statute of limitations-Interstate Commerce Commission
proceeding-Government's intervention.-Clayton Act's statute of limi-
tations was not tolled under § 5 (i) of Act by filing of Government's peti-
tion to intervene in ICC proceeding instituted by motor carrier. Grey-
hound Corp. v. Mt. Hood Stages, Inc., p. 322.

APPEALS. See also Constitutional Law, II, 1, 2.

1. Order denying class certification-Appealability.-"Collateral order"
exception to "final decision" requirement of 28 U. S. C. § 1291 does not
apply to a prejudgment order denying class certification, nor does "death
knell" doctrine support appellate jurisdiction of such an order. Cooper &
Lybrand v. Livesay, p. 463.

2. Order denying class certification-Appealability.-Order denying class
certification was not appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (a) (1). Gardner
v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., p. 478.

ARKANSAS. See Civil Rights; Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards
Act of 1976; Constitutional Law, IV.

AT-LARGE ELECTIONS. See Elections.

ATTACHMENT OF JEOPARDY. See Constitutional Law, II, 4.

ATTORNEY'S FEES. See Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act
of 1976; Constitutional Law, IV.

BANNING OF OUT-OF-STATE WASTE. See Constitutional Law, I, 2.

BOUNTY OR GRANT PAID BY FOREIGN COUNTRY FOR EXPOR-
TATION. See Tariff Act of 1930.

BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. See Constitutional Law,
I, 3.

CIVIL RIGHTS. See also Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of
1976.

Prisons-Remedy to correct constitutional violations.-District Court did
nor err in including 30-day limitation on sentences to isolation as part of
its comprehensive remedy to correct constitutional violations in Arkansas
prison system. Hutto v. Finney, p. 678.

CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY'S FEES AWARDS ACT OF 1976.

Action to remedy unconstitutional prison conditions--Court of Appeals'
additional award of attorney's fees.-Act supports Court of Appeals' addi-
tional award of attorney's fees to cover services rendered prison inmates
on prison officials' unsuccessful appeal from adverse judgment in inmates'
action to remedy unconstitutional conditions in Arkansas prison system.
Hutto v. Finney, p. 678.

CLASS ACTIONS. See Appeals; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
CLASS CERTIFICATION. See Appeals.

CLAYTON ACT. See Antitrust Acts; Federal-State Relations, 2.
"COLLATERAL ORDER" EXCEPTION. See Appeals, 1.

COMMERCE CLAUSE. See Constitutional Law, I.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See also Criminal Law.
I. Commerce Clause.

1. State income taxes-Apportionment of interstate corporation's in-
come-Single-factor formula.-Iowa's single-factor sales formula for appor-
tioning an interstate corporation's income for state income tax purposes is
not invalid under Commerce Clause. Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, p. 267.
2. State prohibition against importation of waste.-New Jersey statute
prohibiting importation of solid or liquid waste originating or collected
outside State violates Commerce Clause. Philadelphia v. New Jersey,
p. 617.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.

3. State regulation of retail gasoline marketing.-Maryland statute pro-
hibiting oil producers or refiners from operating retail gasoline stations in
State does not violate Commerce Clause. Exxon Corp. v. Governor of
Maryland, p. 117.

II. Double Jeopardy.

1. Defendant's termination of trial-Government appeal not barred.—
Government's appeal from defendant's successful effort to have trial ter-
minated without submission to judge or jury as to his guilt or innocence
does not offend Double Jeopardy Clause and hence is not barred by Crim-
inal Appeals Act. United States v. Scott, p. 82.

2. Erroneous exclusion of evidence-Acquittal-Government appeal bar-
red.-Government's appeal from midtrial ruling excluding evidence and
from subsequent acquittal is barred by Double Jeopardy Clause of Fifth
Amendment even though midtrial ruling was erroneous. Sanabria v.
United States, p. 54.

3. Reversal of conviction for insufficiency of evidence-Preclusion of
second trial.-Double Jeopardy Clause of Fifth Amendment precludes sec-
ond trial once reviewing court has found evidence insufficient to sustain
guilty verdict, and only "just" remedy is entry of a judgment of acquittal.
Burks v. United States, p. 1.

4. Time when jeopardy attaches-Empaneling and swearing of jury.—
Federal rule that jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when jury is empaneled
and sworn is an integral part of Fifth Amendment guarantee against
double jeopardy made applicable to States by Fourteenth Amendment, and
hence Montana statute providing that jeopardy does not attach until
first witness is sworn cannot constitutionally be applied in a jury trial.
Crist v. Bretz, p. 28.

III. Due Process.

1. Accused's statements-Voluntariness-Admissibility for impeachment
purposes.-Due process requires that statements obtained from accused in
hospital not be used to impeach his credibility at his state trial on murder
and other charges, where it appears that they were not "the product of
[his] free and rational choice." Mincey v. Arizona, p. 385.

2. State income taxes-Apportionment of interstate corporation's in-
come-Single-factor formula.-Iowa's single-factor sales formula for appor-
tioning an interstate corporation's income for state income tax purposes is
not invalid under Due Process Clause. Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, p. 267.
3. State regulation of retail gasoline marketing.-Maryland statute pro-
hibiting oil producers' or refiners' operation of retail gasoline stations in
State and regulating pricing practices does not violate Due Process Clause.
Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, p. 117.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.

IV. Eleventh Amendment.

Action to remedy unconstitutional prison conditions—Attorney's fees
award. In action wherein inmates were granted relief against unconstitu-
tional conditions in Arkansas prison system, District Court's award of
attorney's fees to be paid out of Department of Correction funds is ade-
quately supported by its finding that defendant prison officials had acted
in bad faith in failing to cure previously identified constitutional viola-
tions, and does not violate Eleventh Amendment. Hutto v. Finney, p. 678.
V. Privileges and Immunities Clause.

“Alaska Hire" statute-Employment preference for residents.-"Alaska
Hire" statute requiring oil and gas leases, easements or right-of-way
permits for pipelines, and unitization agreements to contain requirement
that Alaska residents be hired in preference to nonresidents violates Priv-
ileges and Immunities Clause. Hicklin v. Orbeck, p. 518.

VI. Searches and Seizures.

Warrantless search of homicide scene.-"Murder scene" exception
created by Arizona Supreme Court to warrant requirement is inconsistent
with Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and warrantless search of
accused's apartment was not constitutionally permissible simply because
a homicide had occurred there. Mincey v. Arizona, p. 385.

CONSUMER ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS. See Tariff Act of 1930.
CORPORATE INCOME TAXES. See Constitutional Law, I, 1; III, 2.
COSTS OF SENDING NOTICES IN CLASS ACTIONS. See Federal
Bules of Civil Procedure.

COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON IMPORTS. See Tariff Act of 1930.
COURT-IMPOSED REAPPORTIONMENT PLANS. See Elections.
COURTS OF APPEALS. See Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act
of 1976; Elections; Mandamus; National Labor Relations Act, 1.
ORIMINAL APPEALS ACT. See Constitutional Law, II, 1.
CRIMINAL LAW. See also Constitutional Law, II; III, 1; VI; Indians.
Ambiguity as to grounds for new trial-Remand-Double jeopardy
determinations.-United States Court of Appeals' judgment upholding denial
of habeas corpus relief to state prisoner against double jeopardy conten-
tions is remanded so that ambiguity as to grounds for Florida Supreme
Court's action in ordering a new trial can be resolved in light of instant
opinion and Burks v. United States, ante, p. 1. Greene v. Massey, p. 19.
CROSSING OF PICKET LINES. See National Labor Relations Act, 2.