Source: https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2005/063006pzr.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:07:32+00:00

Document:
04-10649 ) HENDERSON, FRENCHIE V. PERRY, GOV. OF TX, ET AL.
05-298 ) SOECHTING, CHARLES V. PERRY, GOV. OF TX, ET AL.
The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the judgment below in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. ___ (2006). The judgment is affirmed with respect to the claims in these cases. Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer would reverse the judgment.
05-460 LEE, SHEILA J., ET AL. V. PERRY, GOV. OF TX, ET AL.
05-294 NORTH CAROLINA V. SPEIGHT, TIMMY W.
The 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 Supreme Court of North Carolina for further consideration in light of Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. ___ (2006).
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 Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. ___ (2006).
05-660 WASHINGTON V. HALL, RONALD A.
The 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 Supreme Court of Washington for further consideration in light of Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. ___ (2006).
05-683 McADAMS, TOM V. HARVEY, FRANCIS J.
05-770 CAVICCHI, EUGENE V. CHERTOFF, SEC. OF HOMELAND SEC.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. ___ (2006).
05-1233 JORDAN, PAMELA J. V. CHERTOFF, SEC. OF HOMELAND SEC.
05-1267 THOMAS, MICHAEL A. V. POTTER, POSTMASTER GEN.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co v. White, 548 U.S. ___ (2006).
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of North Carolina for further consideration in light of Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. ___ (2006).
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Minnesota for further consideration in light of Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. ___ (2006).
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. ___ (2006).
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota for further consideration in light of Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. ___ (2006).
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Alaska for further consideration in light of Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. ____ (2006).
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, for further consideration in light of Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. ___ (2006).
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. ___ (2006).
05-357 TEXAS V. LEE, WAYNE J.
05-1027 GOLDRING, WILLIAM, ET AL. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.
05-1049 WHITTAKER, SUSAN V. NO. IL UNIV., ET AL.
05-1115 GRAHAM, MARY C. V. GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN.
05-1327 MOWBRAY, KAREN V. AM. GENERAL LIFE, ET AL.
05-6093 LINDELL, NATHANIEL A. V. O'DONNELL, CINDY, ET AL.
05-6336 JOHNSON, DAVID V. MEADOWS, WARDEN, ET AL.
05-7630 FEUER, SCOTT L. V. McCOLLUM, WILLIAM B., ET AL.
04-1579 LABORATORY CORP. OF AMERICA V. METABOLITE LABORATORIES, ET AL.
05-769 MASSACHUSETTS V. FOLEY, WILLIAM F.
The motions of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

References: V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.