The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. __ (2002).
00-1946 INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES V. CAT CONTRACTING, ET AL.The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. __ (2002).
01-35 SENIOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. R. F. TECHNOLOGIES, INC.The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoko Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. __ (2002).
01-269 CREO PRODUCTS INC. V. DAINIPPON SCREEN, ET AL.The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. __ (2002).
01-423 SEMITOOL, INC. V. NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. __ (2002).
01-506 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. V. SPACE SYSTEMS/LORAL, INC.The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. __ (2002).
01-541 AccuSCAN, INC. V. XEROX CORP.The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. __ (2002). Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
01-677 PTI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. PALL CORP. TECHN., INC.The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for futher consideration in light of Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. __ (2002).
01-711 BELL, WARDEN V. QUINTERO, DERRICKThe motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. __ (2002).
01-740 MYCOGEN PLANT SCIENCE, ET AL V. MONSANTO COMPANYThe petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for futher consideration in light of Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. __ (2002).
01-1413 JONES, WARDEN V. FRENCH, OLIVERThe motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. __ (2002).
The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.
01A858 GONZALEZ, LOUIS, ET UX. V. USCA 9th CIRCUITThe application for stay addressed to Justice Ginsburg and referred to the Court is denied.
01M61 O’GRADY, MARY V. BARNHART, COMM’R, SSAThe motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out-of-time are denied.
01M63 BOWERS, GARY D. v. ILLINOISThe motion to direct the Clerk to file an original action is denied.
01-1229 PIERCE COUNTY, WA V. GUILLEN, IGNACIO, ET AL.The motion of the United States to intervene is granted. The motion of respondents Whitmer to determine party status is granted, and it is determined that the Whitmers are not parties under Rule 12.6, but they may file a brief as amici curiae.
01-8796 WESTINE, JOHN G. V. STEPP, WARDENThe motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
01-9423 TAYLOR, ALICE V. PEARL CRUISES, ET AL.The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until June 24, 2002, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.
01-1375 UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATIONThe petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. This case is set for oral argument in tandem with No.
01-1067, United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe.The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.
01-495 COCKRELL, DIR., TX DCJ V. BURDINE, CALVIN J.The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
01-1247 WISCONSIN V. EPA, ET AL.The motion of Fidelity Exploration & Production Company for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
01-9439 SAFOUANE, AZIZ, ET UX. V. FLECK, DEBORAH, ET AL.The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
01-9441 STRONG, JEFF V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OFFICEThe petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.
01-9451 MULAZIM, FA'DEE V. MI DOC, ET AL.The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, and cases cited therein. HABEAS CORPUS DENIED
01-10019 IN RE ANTONIA BERRYThe petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
01-9372 IN RE CARL A. ROBERTSONThe petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition are denied.
The petitions for rehearing are denied.
01-788 COOPER, EDWARD M. V. HVASS, COMM'R, MN DOCThe motion of petitioner for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for rehearing is denied.
Frank Edward Little, of Mercer, Pennsylvania, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of January 22, 2001; and a rule having been issued and served upon him requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired; It is ordered that Frank Edward Little is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
The Court will take a recess from today until Monday, June 10, 2002.