HABEAS CORPUS. See also Jurisdiction, 4.

1. State courts-Right to hearing-Denial of counsel-Suppression
of evidence. When state prisoner applied to state court for habeas
corpus and alleged that he was denied counsel at his trial for murder
and that prosecutor suppressed evidence favorable to defendant, he
was entitled to hearing. Wilde v. Wyoming, p. 607.

2. State courts-Right to hearing-Sufficiency of petition.-Peti-
tion to State Supreme Court for habeas corpus on ground that
confinement violated Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment
alleged sufficient facts to entitle petitioner to hearing, and it was
error to deny writ without hearing. Sublett v. Adams, p. 143.

HANDBILLS. See Constitutional Law, IV.

HEALTH. See Constitutional Law, I, 2; Federal Trade Com-
mission.

HEARING. See Constitutional Law, II; Habeas Corpus.

HEARSAY. See Constitutional Law, V, 2.

HOTELS. See Constitutional Law, V, 1.

HUSBAND AND WIFE. See Evidence.

HYDROELECTRIC POWER. See Federal Power Act.

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

Aliens; Constitutional Law, V, 1.

INCOME TAX. See Taxation.

SERVICE. See

INDIANS. See Federal Power Act.

INDICTMENT. See Criminal Law.

INDUSTRIAL WASTE. See Navigable Waters.

INJUNCTIONS. See Civil Rights Act; Constitutional Law, III;
Jurisdiction, 2, 5-8; Labor, 3, 6-7; Navigable Waters.

INNKEEPERS. See Constitutional Law, V, 1.

INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY. See Employers' Liability Act.

INSUBORDINATION.

See Constitutional Law, II, 2.

INSURANCE. See Federal Trade Commission.

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. See Procedure, 5; Taxation.

INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950. See Aliens.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. See Jurisdiction, 6.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE. See Constitutional Law, I; Crim-
inal Law; Federal Trade Commission; Jurisdiction, 8; Labor, 5;
Transportation.

JOINDER OF PARTIES. See Criminal Law.

JURISDICTION. See also Civil Rights Act; Labor, 3, 6-7:
Navigable Waters; Procedure.

1. Supreme Court-Direct appeal from District Court-Judgment
holding federal statute unconstitutional.—When basis of District
Court's judgment was that federal statute was unconstitutional, case
was properly appealed directly to Supreme Court under 28 U. S. C.
§ 1252, no matter what parties contend proper basis of judgment
should have been. United States v. Raines, p. 17.

2. Supreme Court-Direct appeal from District Court-Suit to
enjoin enforcement of state statute.-When complaint sought to
enjoin enforcement of state statute on ground of federal unconstitu-
tionality, it was required to be heard by 3-judge District Court under
28 U. S. C. § 2281, and direct appeal from dismissal was properly
taken to Supreme Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, notwithstanding
allegation of other grounds for relief. Florida Lime and Avocado
Growers v. Jacobsen, p. 73.

3. Supreme Court-Appeal-State decision sustaining state tax-
When taxpayer did not explicitly challenge constitutionality of state
tax statute, Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C.
§ 1257 of appeal from state decision sustaining it; but granted cer-
tiorari under 28 U. S. C. § 2103 to consider claim that it infringed
his federal immunities. Rohr Aircraft Corp. v. San Diego County,
p. 628.

4. Supreme Court-Moot case-Dismissal.-Supreme Court with-
out jurisdiction to review denial of habeas corpus to prisoner released
after case reached Supreme Court Parker v. Ellis, p. 574.

5. District Courts—Basis of judgment—Constitutional question not
properly before court.-When a complaint under R. S. § 2004, as
amended by Civil Rights Act of 1957, related only to official actions,
District Court erred in dismissing it on ground that the Act would
exceed permissible limits of Fifteenth Amendment if applied to purely
private actions by private persons. United States v. Raines, p. 17.

6. District Courts-Injunctions-"Labor disputes."-The Norris-
LaGuardia Act deprives a Federal District Court of jurisdiction to
enjoin American seamen from peacefully picketing a foreign ship
with a foreign crew while temporarily in an American port, in protest
against loss of livelihood by American seamen to foreign ships with
substandard wages or conditions, and in order to prevent the ship
from unloading its cargo. Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Panama
S. S. Co., p. 365.

7. District Courts-Injunctions-"Labor disputes."-The Norris-
LaGuardia Act deprives a Federal District Court of jurisdiction to

JURISDICTION-Continued.

enjoin a railroad labor union from striking because of the railroad's
refusal to negotiate about a proposed agreement not to abolish any
position without the union's consent, even when controversy grew out
of railroad's proposal to abolish or consolidate little-used stations with
permission of state regulatory commissions. Telegraphers v. Chicago
& N. W. R. Co., p. 330.

8. District Courts-Suit to enjoin enforcement of state statute as
violative of Federal Constitution-Failure to contest validity or
enforcement in state courts.-When complaint in suit to enjoin
enforcement of state statute on grounds of federal unconstitution-
ality alleged justiciable controversy, failure of complainant to contest
its validity or enforcement in state courts did not bar right to seek
injunction in federal court. Florida Lime and Avocado Growers v.
Jacobsen, p. 73.

9. District Courts-Suit for refund of income tax-Part pay-
ments.-Under 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a) (1), a federal district court does
not have jurisdiction of an action by a taxpayer for refund of part
payment of an assessment for a deficiency in his income tax. Flora
v. United States, p. 145.

JURY. See Employers' Liability Act.

LABOR. See also Admiralty; Employers' Liability Act.

1. National Labor Relations Act-Unfair labor practice-Com-
plaint-Limitations.-Six-month statute of limitations contained in
§ 10 (b) of National Labor Relations Act barred complaint for
enforcement during preceding six months of "union security" clause
in agreement between employer and minority union entered into more
than six months before filing of complaint. Machinists Local v. Labor
Board, p. 411.

2. National Labor Relations Act-Unfair labor practice-Peaceful
picketing to compel employer recognition.-Peaceful picketing by
minority union to compel employer to recognize it as exclusive bar-
gaining agent of employees is not conduct "to restrain or coerce"
employees in exercise of rights under §7 and therefore not unfair
labor practice under § 8 (b)(1)(A). Labor Board v. Drivers Local
Union, p. 274.

3. National Labor Relations Act-Collective bargaining agree-
ments-Conflict with state antitrust laws--Jurisdiction of state court
to enjoin. State court may not apply state antitrust law so as to
prevent carrying out of agreement between employers and unions on
subject matter as to which National Labor Relations Act requires
them to bargain. Teamsters Union v. Oliver, p. 605.

LABOR-Continued.

4. National Labor Relations Act-Union coercing employees to
strike-Scope of order.-Board finding that union had violated
§8 (b) (1) (A) by coercing employees of telephone company to par-
ticipate in strike sustained; cease and desist order sustained, except
insofar as it related to employees of "any other employer."
Communications Workers v. Labor Board, p. 479.

5. Fair Labor Standards Act-Coverage-Employees of contractor
building dam for city water works.-Employees of contractor build-
ing dam to increase reservoir capacity of city water works not within
coverage of overtime provisions of Act, even though substantial part
of water will be used by interstate instrumentalities and producers of
goods for interstate commerce. Mitchell v. H. B. Zachry Co.,
p. 310.

6. Norris-LaGuardia Act - Injunctions - "Labor disputes."-The
Norris-LaGuardia Act deprives a Federal District Court of jurisdic-
tion to enjoin a railroad labor union from striking because of the
railroad's refusal to negotiate about a proposed agreement not to
abolish any position without the union's consent, even when con-
troversy grew out of railroad's proposal to abolish or consolidate
little-used stations with permission of state regulatory commissions.
Telegraphers v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., p. 330.

7. Norris-LaGuardia Act-Injunctions-"Labor disputes."-The
Norris-LaGuardia Act deprives a Federal District Court of jurisdic-
tion to enjoin American seamen from peacefully picketing a foreign
ship with a foreign crew while temporarily in an American port, in
protest against loss of livelihood by American seamen to foreign ships
with substandard wages or conditions, and in order to prevent the
ship from unloading its cargo. Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Panama
S. S. Co.,
p. 365.

LICENSES. See Constitutional Law, I, 2.

LIMITATIONS. See Labor, 1.

LOITERING. See Constitutional Law, II, 3.

LOUISIANA.

See Constitutional Law, III.

LUMBER. See Transportation.

MAIL-ORDER BUSINESS. See Federal Trade Commission.

MANN ACT. See Evidence.

MCCARRAN-FERGUSON ACT. See Federal Trade Commission.

MEDICINES. See Antitrust Acts, 1.

MICHIGAN. See Constitutional Law, I, 2.

MILK PRODUCERS. See Antitrust Acts, 2.

MOOT CASE. See Jurisdiction, 4.

MOTOR CARRIERS. See Labor, 2-3.

MUSIC. See Copyrights.

NARCOTICS. See Constitutional Law, V, 2.

NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940. See Procedure, 3.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. See Labor, 1-4.
NAVIGABLE WATERS.

Obstructions-Discharge of industrial waste-Injunction.-Dis-
charge through sewers of industrial waste solids which reduced depth
of channel in navigable river violated §§ 10 and 13 of Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899 and not exempted under § 13 as "refuse . . .
flowing from sewers . . . in liquid state"; District Court authorized
to grant injunctive relief in suit by United States. United States v.
Republic Steel Corp., p. 482.

NEBRASKA. See Federal Trade Commission.

NEGLIGENCE. See Admiralty.

NEGROES. See Civil Rights Act; Constitutional Law, III;
Jurisdiction, 5.

NEW YORK. See Federal Power Act.

NIAGARA RIVER POWER PROJECT. See Federal Power Act.

NONRESIDENTS. See Constitutional Law, I, 1.

NORRIS-LaGUARDIA ACT. See Labor, 6–7.

POLICE POWER. See Constitutional Law, I, 2.

POWER. See Federal Power Act.

PRICES. See Antitrust Acts, 1.

PROBABLE CAUSE. See Constitutional Law, V, 2.

541680 O-60-51