No. 79-807. PEER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ET AL. v. GRIFFETH ET AL. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 F. 2d 118. MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting. The Court of Appeals has taken a significant step in this case to expand the ruling of this Court in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), a step that I believe merits plenary consideration by the full Court. The question pertains to whether an applicant for state-mandated welfare benefits is entitled to a hearing under the procedural guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution before being denied welfare benefits for failure to meet the initial requirements imposed by state law. The California courts themselves, in Zobriscky v. Los Angeles County, 28 Cal. App. 3d 930, 105 Cal. Rptr. 121 (1972), have concluded that an applicant is not entitled to any hearing because, in the words of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, they "refused to find general relief to be a protected property interest." Griffeth v. Detrich, 603 F. 2d 118, 121 (1979). There has been much decisional law from this and other courts, and much scholarly commentary, as to what is a protected "property" interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and what procedural guarantees are necessary under that Clause before one may be denied such a property interest. See, e. g., Goldberg v. Kelly, supra; Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976); Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S. 1 (1979); Van Alstyne, Cracks in "The New Property": Adjudicative Due Process in the Administrative State, 62 Cornell L. Rev. 445 (1977). Obviously this Court cannot parse every state-law provision to determine whether it creates a protected "property interest" under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But here I believe the District Court put its finger on the significance of the case when it ruled against respondents, saying: "Plaintiffs [respondents] argue that the pretermination evidentiary hearing required by the Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254. . . (1970) should be applied to protect denied applicants for General Relief in San Diego County. . . . Defendants oppose an extension of Goldberg's protection of terminated recipients of welfare to denied applicants for General Relief. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. Wheeler v. Montgomery, 397 U. S. 280, 284-285... (1970) (BURGER, C. J., dissenting)." (Emphasis supplied in part.) Griffeth v. Detrich, 448 F. Supp. 1137, 1139 (SD Cal. 1978). Particularly when the only state appellate court to consider the question has concluded that there is no protected property interest under state law, this extension of Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, should receive plenary consideration by this Court. No. 79-1074. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner to strike brief of intervening respondents and certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 F. 2d 277. No. 79-1197. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. MERCY HOSPITAL ASSN. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE would grant certiorari. Reported below: 606 F. 2d 22. No. 79-5707. FLANAGAN v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion for leave to file a supplement to petition granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 F. 2d 253. No. 79-5901. WADE v. LOUISIANA. Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN would grant certiorari. Reported below: 375 So. 2d 97. No. 79-1248. MISSOURI v. WANDIX. Sup. Ct. Mo. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 590 S. W. 2d 82. No. 79-1306. CASTRO v. TERRITORY OF GUAM. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART would grant certiorari. Reported below: 612 F.2d 584. No. 79-6111. FORD V. FLORIDA. Sup. Ct. Fla.; No. 79-6116. THOMAS V. FLORIDA. Sup. Ct. Fla.; No. 79-6168. STAMPER V. VIRGINIA. Sup. Ct. Va.; and No. 79-6187. TUCKER V. GEORGIA. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 79-6111, 374 So. 2d 496; No. 79-6116, 374 So. 2d 508; No. 79-6168, 220 Va. 260, 257 S. E. 2d 808; No. 79-6187, 244 Ga. 721, 261 S. E. 2d 635. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. 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. Rehearing Denied No. 78-1323. NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY Co. v. LIEPELT, ADMINISTRATRIX, 444 U. S. 490; No. 78-1335. VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG v. CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT ET AL., 444 U. S. 620; No. 78-1871. SNEPP v. UNITED STATES, 444 U. S. 507; No. 79-265. UNITED STATES v. SNEPP, 444 U. S. 507; No. 79-579. ERWIN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, 444 U. S. 1071; and No. 79-830. VINSON V. UNITED STATES, 444 U. S. 1074. Petitions for rehearing denied. 445 U.S. No. 79-833. April 14, 1980 KONDRAT V. CITY OF WILLOUGHBY HILLS ET AL., 444 U. S. 1075; No. 79-890. LAMERS DAIRY, INC., ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, 444 U. S. 1077; No. 79-894. PARKER V. TEXAS, 444 U. S. 1060; No. 79-918. SHUFFMAN, EXECUTRIX V. HARTFORD TEXTILE CORP. ET AL., 444 U. S. 1078; No. 79-942. SHUFFMAN, EXECUTRIX v. HARTFORD TEXTILE CORP. ET AL., 444 U. S. 1078; No. 79-971. CEFALU V. GLOBE NEWSPAPER Co., 444 U. S. 1060; No. 79-1001. SHUFFMAN, EXECUTRIX V. HARTFORD TEXTILE CORP. ET AL., 444 U. S. 1080; No. 79-5360. MORRIS v. CATE-MCLAURIN CO. ET AL., ante, p. 917; No. 79-5733. JONES ET UX. v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP., 444 U. S. 1085; No. 79-5744. ALDERMAN v. BALKCOM, WARDEN, 444 U. S. 1103; No. 79-5777. HAYES V. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 444 U. S. 1061; No. 79-5802. CLARK V. PAYNE ET AL., 444 U. S. 1088; p. 932; No. 79-5893. YOUNG v. INDIANA, ante, p. 906; No. 79-5917. HUNT v. GREENBERG, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALBANY COUNTY, ET AL., ante, p. 918. No. 79-5929. TAYLOR v. CITY OF ATLANTA ET AL., ante, p. 907; and No. 79-5973. SELLARS V. COMMUNITY RELEASE BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, ante, p. 919. Petitions for rehearing denied. No. 78-1548. CALIFORNIA BREWERS ASSN. ET AL. v. BRYANT ET AL., 444 U. S. 598. Petition for rehearing denied. MR. JUSTICE POWELL and MR. JUSTICE STEVENS took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. No. 79-5986. MAHLER V. NELSON, WARDEN, 444 U. S. 1092. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied. APRIL 17, 1980 Dismissal Under Rule 60 No. 79-5974. BROCKINGTON ET AL. v. GEORGIA. Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari dismissed as to petitioner Brockington under this Court's Rule 60. Reported below: 152 Ga. App. 11, 262 S. E. 2d 170. |