Task: sc_caseorigin

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York.

Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue in this case is the propriety of an award of summary judgment in favor of respondent Cities Service in a treble-damage antitrust action. The District Court held there was no genuine issue as to material facts between the parties and that respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 38 F. R. D. 170 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1965). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 361 F. 2d 671 (1966). This Court granted certiorari, 385 U. S. 1024 (1967), to determine whether the decisions below were in conformity with Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U. S. 464 (1962). We conclude that Poller and other decisions of this Court were correctly applied and, accordingly, we affirm.
Because the question whether summary judgment is appropriate in any case is one to be decided upon the particular facts of that case, we shall set forth the background of this litigation in some detail (Part I) before turning to the specific issues petitioner raises (Parts II-V).
I.
On June 11, 1956, petitioner Waldron filed a private antitrust complaint in the Southern District of New York against seven large oil companies: British Petroleum Co., Ltd. (formerly Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.), Gulf Oil Corp., Socony Mobil Oil Co., Standard Oil Co. of California, Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, The Texas Co., and Cities Service Co. The complaint contained essentially two series of allegations. The first was copied from the complaint in a then-pending civil action by the United States against those defendants other than Cities Service, alleging the formation and maintenance by them of a worldwide oil cartel since 1928. The second series of allegations dealt specifically with a conspiracy claimed to have been entered into at the time of the nationalization of the properties of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. by the Government of Iran in May 1951. The defendants other than Cities Service, it was asserted, agreed at that time to boycott Iranian oil in all world markets until Iran should agree to return Anglo-Iranian’s property and concession rights. While the dispute between Anglo-Iranian and the Iranian Government under Premier Mossadegh was still continuing, Waldron and some of his associates allegedly succeeded in obtaining a contract to purchase 15,000,000 metric tons of crude oil or refined products from the National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC), the company formed to take over Anglo-Iranian’s nationalized properties, over a five-year period at a rate substantially less than the then current posted price for Persian Gulf oil. NIOC in return agreed not to deal with anybody other than Waldron in the United States market.
The complaint next stated that the defendants other than Cities Service conspired to prevent petitioner from selling any of the oil to which he was entitled under his contract with NIOC. It was further alleged that Cities Service, after first engaging in extensive negotiations with Waldron with an eye toward participating in the operation of the Iranian oil industry, broke off dealing and joined the conspiracy to boycott him as a result of having received what amounted to a bribe from Gulf and Anglo-Iranian, namely, a large supply of oil from Kuwait at a price even lower than that petitioner could offer Cities pursuant to his contract with NIOC. Finally, the defendants were alleged to have entered into a Consortium Agreement in 1954, pursuant to their attempt to monopolize Middle East oil production, which parceled out substantially all the Iranian oil production between them. Cities Service was claimed to have been permitted to purchase a share in the Consortium. Petitioner asserted that the boycott conspiracy carried out by all the defendants completely frustrated his ability to sell oil under his contract and accordingly sought treble damages from them in the amount of $109,000,000.
Within the time set for the defendants to answer the complaint, various of them moved to take petitioner’s deposition, and all of them moved to postpone the filing of their answers until the completion of that deposition. The motions were accompanied by affidavits of counsel that the legal questions presented by the complaint were extraordinarily complex and that they had insufficient information about petitioner’s business dealings with the Iranian Government to permit them adequately to prepare their clients’ answers within the 20-day time limit set by Rule 12 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These motions were granted by Judge Weinfeld, who, in addition, stayed petitioner from any discovery of his own until completion of the defendants’ discovery, apparently pursuant to then existing practice in the Southern District.
The deposition of Waldron commenced on September 10, 1956, and continued until July 3, 1957, at which time petitioner’s counsel announced his intention to limit further examination. Nothing further was done by any party until December 30, 1957, at which time a motion was made to terminate the taking of Waldron’s deposition. By this time 62 days’ testimony had been taken over a period of more than 15 months. All adjournments up to this point were either at Waldron’s request or with his consent. Meanwhile, various of the defendants had noticed the depositions of petitioner’s associates, Richard S. Nelson, James A. Bentley, James E. Zoes, Ray Carter, and Addison Brown, in October and November 1956. Pursuant to successive stipulations entered into between petitioner and the defendants, the taking of these depositions had been postponed up to the date of petitioner’s motion to terminate the taking of his own deposition. In that motion petitioner also moved to vacate the notices to take depositions of his associates.
In response to petitioner’s claims that the protracted examination of him by the defendants constituted harassment and an undue burden on him, the defendants pointed out that only one of their number had as yet examined Waldron and that the length of time over which the examination had proceeded had been with his complete acquiescence. As for petitioner’s financial hardship contention, the defendants suggested that, in view of the damages sought by petitioner, it was not inappropriate that he be required to spend considerable time clarifying his claims before trial. Judge Herlands denied the motion on February 11, 1958, after argument; he ordered, however, that further examination of the petitioner by the seven defendants be limited to 52 working days, of which 10 were allotted to respondent Cities Service. In addition 174% days were scheduled for the examination of Waldron’s five associates, of which 31 went to Cities Service. The examinations were to be consecutive and were set to commence on March 10, 1958, unless the parties agreed otherwise. The defendants were authorized to postpone the filing of their answers until 30 days after the completion of the depositions, and petitioner was stayed from undertaking any discovery proceedings of his own during that period.
Pursuant to stipulation the continued examination of petitioner did not resume until September 15, 1958, and was not terminated until October 1959. Twenty-six days were spent deposing Waldron in the latter part of 1958 and only six days during all of 1959, of which 3% were utilized by counsel for Cities Service. Petitioner’s associates were deposed between January 1960 and April 1962 for 58 working days, of which 3% were used by counsel for Cities Service. Waldron was then examined for one additional day in 1962.
Thus, between September 1956 and May 1962, a period of over 5% years, Waldron and his associates were deposed for a total of 153 days, of which only seven days were attributable to Cities Service. The various stipulations that resulted in prolonging the period required for the taking of these depositions were all entered into either at the request, or with the agreement, of petitioner.
During the course of his deposition by Cities Service, Waldron stated that he had at first not attributed Cities’ failure to conclude some sort of a deal with him for Iranian oil to its participation in the boycott. He explained that it was his discovery of Cities’ purchase of substantial amounts of Kuwait oil from Gulf, plus its subsequent participation in the 1954 Consortium, that prompted him to join it in his complaint as a member of the conspiracy. Accordingly, when Cities moved for summary judgment in its favor in 1960, it did so on the ground that the affidavit of Cities’ Senior Vice President in Charge of Foreign Operations, George H. Hill, and the accompanying documents from Cities’ files that were submitted in support of the- motion conclusively disproved petitioner’s theory that it had joined the alleged boycott conspiracy because it had been bought off by the other conspirators.
In brief, the documents demonstrated that Cities had been engaged in negotiations with Gulf to purchase Kuwait crude oil since 1948, and that a substantially final agreement, although not the actual conclusion of a contract, had been reached on the proposed deal prior to the time petitioner first approached Cities. As for the Consortium, the documents showed that Cities had only-commenced negotiations with the defendants to obtain participation therein some two years after it was alleged to have joined the conspiracy and that the share it was eventually offered, over its strenuous objections, was so small that it transferred the share to the Richfield Oil Co., in which it held a minority stock interest.
In reply to Cities’ motion, petitioner’s counsel reiterated his contention that the course of dealings between Waldron and his associates, on the one hand, and various of Cities’ executive personnel, especially its president, W. Alton Jones, on the other, raised an inference of conspiracy because the most probable conclusion to be drawn from Cities’ decision to pass up the assert-edly extremely beneficial deal proposed by petitioner, notwithstanding its need for additional supplies of imported oil, was that in some manner Cities either had been “reached” or had used its negotiations with Wal-dron as a means of forcing its way into the alleged Middle East oil cartel. Petitioner also suggested that Cities might well have made some sort of informal agreement with the other defendants concerning the Consortium that was not revealed by the documents and that Cities might have expected, at the time such an agreement was made, a more profitable share therein than it was eventually offered.
In response to these arguments, Judge Herlands, who had by this time been assigned to the case for all purposes, handed down a memorandum decision on March 30, 1961, postponing determination of Cities’ motion for summary judgment. In his opinion Judge Herlands stated that it was “doubtful” whether any issue as to any material fact existed and that Cities had been named a defendant on mere “suspicion.” Because he judged petitioner’s claim against Cities “so insubstantial,” he ruled that petitioner would not be given “carte blanche authority to conduct untrammeled pre-trial proceedings,” but that such proceedings would be “closely regulated.” Subsequently, Judge Herlands entered an order providing that petitioner was to be allowed to take the deposition of Hill, the Cities’ executive who had been in charge of negotiating the Kuwait deal with Gulf and who had also carried out Cities’ attempts to secure a participation in the Consortium.
At the hearing in 1961 on the proposed order to implement the court’s decision, counsel for Waldron asked to depose Cities’ president Jones first. Contrary to what appears to be the position taken now, petitioner acknowledged and accepted Judge Herlands’ order that his discovery of Cities was to be carried out pursuant to Rule 56 (f), Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., which provides for comparatively limited discovery for the purpose of showing facts sufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion, rather than Rule 26, which provides for broad pretrial discovery. Petitioner’s sole objection to the proposed order was that Jones should be deposed rather than Hill.
In response to Judge Herlands’ observation that Hill was the man who was in the best position to provide information about the two alleged facts relied on in the complaint to link Cities to the conspiracy, petitioner’s counsel for the first time argued that the Kuwait deal and the Consortium agreement were not crucial to the case. While maintaining the position that those two items were significant, counsel stated that Cities’ motive for entering the alleged conspiracy was basically irrelevant. He argued that the evidence showed that Cities had embarked on a course of dealing with Waldron and then inexplicably had broken it off, and that this sequence of events was in itself sufficient evidence of conspiracy to withstand summary judgment and to entitle petitioner to sufficient discovery to ascertain the reason for the breakoff.
This argument was rejected and the trial judge clearly stated that to withstand summary judgment petitioner would have to produce some factual evidence of conspiracy beyond Cities’ mere failure to carry through on a deal for Iranian oil. The taking of Hill’s deposition was scheduled, without objection by petitioner, to commence upon the completion of the depositions of petitioner’s associates.
More than a year then elapsed, during which time, again pursuant to stipulations between all the parties, only 25 days were spent taking the depositions of petitioner’s associates. Immediately after the completion of these depositions, in response to motions to strike portions of the complaint made by various defendants other than Cities, petitioner announced his intention to amend his complaint and entered into a stipulation with the other parties extending their time to move or answer until 30 days after service on them of the amended complaint. This stipulation was entered into on June 1, 1962, approximately 30 days prior to the time by which, under Judge Herlands’ previous order, the defendants would have been. required to answer the complaint or move for summary judgment. Some five weeks later, at the request of petitioner’s counsel, a new stipulation was entered into postponing the taking of Hill’s deposition until September 10, 1962, and staying petitioner’s undertaking to file an amended complaint pending completion of the Hill deposition.
Between September 10, 1962, and February 27, 1963, pursuant to stipulations between the parties, petitioner deposed Mr. Hill for a total of six working days. Then, at the beginning of May, petitioner moved for additional discovery. In response to this motion respondent Cities Service renewed its summary judgment motion in addition to opposing further discovery by petitioner. At oral argument on May 27, 1963, Judge Herlands reiterated his opinion that thus far Waldron was still unable to point to any facts tending to show that Cities had participated in the alleged conspiracy. Indeed, the deposition testimony of Hill, plus various additional documentary evidence supplied in connection therewith, had further disproved the Kuwait and Consortium payoff theories. This evidence showed that Cities had actively resisted formation of the Consortium by the other defendants, even to the extent of making approaches to the United States Government in the hope of securing its intervention in the situation.
While the respective motions were pending before Judge Herlands, petitioner on June 28, 1963, filed an amended complaint. It differed from the original complaint in that most of the specific facts alleged in the original were replaced by more general allegations of conspiracy and boycott. In regard to Cities, the complaint was amended to omit all reference to any factual allegations involving either Kuwait oil or membership in the 1954 Consortium. In addition, those allegations of the original complaint which were directed at the other defendants and which had specifically excluded Cities were made more general, and the language excluding Cities was replaced by language referring simply to unspecified co-conspirators. In place of the previous specific allegations directed at Cities, the amended complaint substituted two new formulations: first, a general allegation that Cities joined the conspiracy at a time and in a manner not known to the plaintiff; and, second, that the other defendants and various of their co-conspirators “secretly threatened, induced and conspired with defendant Cities Service to break off all dealings with plaintiff.”
Judge Herlands held petitioner’s and Cities’ cross-motions under advisement for a little more than a year while he considered motions for summary judgment against petitioner made by the other defendants. Then, on June 23, 1964, in a long and comprehensive opinion dealing with both sets of motions, he denied the motions for summary judgment made by the other defendants, again postponed final disposition of Cities’ motion and granted Waldron the opportunity to conduct further discovery of Cities under Rule 56 (f). Presumably, decision on petitioner’s motion was deferred so long because, had the motions of the defendants other than Cities for summary judgment been granted, petitioner’s case against Cities would have also been terminated. In any event, the order implementing the decision permitted petitioner to depose all those members of Cities’ executive staff then alive who he alleged had participated at all in the dealings concerning Iranian oil, namely, Burl S. Watson, Cities’ chairman of the board, Alfred P. Frame, Cities’ first vice president, and J. Edgar Heston, Cities’ manager of oil production. The order also directed Cities to produce all documents and memoranda relating to (a) the Kuwait and Consortium issues, (b) conversations and communications between it and any other defendant between June 11, 1952, and October 1, 1952, concerning petitioner, his associates, and Cities’ dealings in connection with Iranian oil, (c) conversations and communications between Cities and any other defendant between June 11, 1953, and September 30, 1953, pertaining to negotiations between Waldron and the Richfield Oil Corp. concerning the purchase by Richfield of Iranian oil, and (d) conversations and communications between any deponent for Cities and any other Cities’ employee involving the subject matter described in the preceding categories. The depositions of the three Cities’ executives were completed during the months of July and August 1964 and in connection therewith more than 140 documents were produced.
In September 1964 petitioner moved for the following additional discovery: first, the production of all documents in the possession of Cities dealing with Cities’ activities in connection with Iranian oil between June 1952 and January 1955; second, the production of all documents relating to the same subject matter in the possession of the other defendants; and third, the production of all relevant documents from, and oral examination of, Ray Carter, a former Cities employee who had acted as an intermediary between Cities and petitioner in their dealings. Petitioner further indicated a desire to depose various unspecified officials of the other defendants after the completion of the discovery detailed in his motion. Immediately thereafter, in October 1964, Cities for the third time renewed its motion for summary judgment and argument was had on both motions in February 1965. Judge Herlands granted Cities’ motion on September 8, 1965, holding that petitioner had failed to fulfill the requirement of amended Rule 56 (e) that a party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion must produce by affidavit or otherwise “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” As to petitioner’s cross-motion for additional discovery under Rule 56 (f), the court ruled that petitioner’s total failure by that date to produce any evidence tending to show Cities’ participation in a conspiracy to boycott him, despite considerable discovery, demonstrated that additional discovery would be merely a fishing expedition and would unduly harass respondent. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court in all particulars.
Petitioner states that three questions are presented by this case: first, whether he was improperly limited in the discovery permitted him prior to the rendering of summary judgment (Parts II, V, infra); second, whether sufficient material facts to raise genuine issues for trial were shown (Part III, infra); and third, whether the lower courts held, erroneously, that amended Rule 56 (e), Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., places the burden of showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial on the party opposing a motion for summary judgment (Part IV, infra).
II.
We turn first to one aspect of petitioner’s contention that his discovery was unduly restricted: whether certain orders of the trial judge imposed unfair limits on his access to relevant information. The second aspect of petitioner’s discovery argument, addressed to what he viewed as the necessity for additional discovery to enable him adequately to oppose the summary judgment motion, we shall discuss in Part V of the opinion.
Petitioner’s initial complaint, as set out more fully, supra, at 259-261, specifically alleged that Cities had adhered to the conspiracy by refusing to deal with petitioner after being bought off by the Kuwait contract and an opportunity to participate in the Consortium. Similarly, in his deposition, Waldron reiterated his belief that the only links between Cities and the conspiracy were those two payoffs. Thus, by petitioner’s own doing, respondent Cities Service was from the beginning of the litigation placed in a vastly different position from the other alleged co-conspirators. Cities, realizing this, apparently felt that if it could show that it had in fact not received any payoff or bribe from the other defendants, petitioner would abandon his contention that it had joined the alleged conspiracy. Accordingly, immediately after it had taken Waldron’s deposition, Cities made its motion for summary judgment accompanied by Hill’s affidavit and the supporting documents described, supra, at 263-264. When Judge Herlands declined to grant Cities’ motion at that time, he permitted petitioner to examine Cities about those specific facts that had theretofore been the only ones alleged as evidence of conspiracy on the part of Cities, other than its failure to make a deal with petitioner for Iranian oil. Petitioner appears to argue that it was erroneous for the trial court to limit his discovery initially to Hill rather than Jones, the person with whom he primarily dealt. However, since petitioner was the party who had injected Kuwait and Consortium into the case and since Hill had been the ranking Cities official in charge of both transactions, it is difficult to conclude that the trial judge abused his discretion in ordering petitioner to begin by examining Hill.
Even assuming arguendo that it was error for petitioner to have been required to begin his discovery with Hill rather than Jones, the issue is moot for purposes of appellate review because Jones’ accidental death occurred prior to the time petitioner would have been able to commence deposing him had he been permitted by Judge Herlands to do so. There is no reason to believe that petitioner would have made any greater efforts to see that the examination of his associates, Bentley, Zoés, and Brown, was carried out in less than the 13 months that were actually taken had he been scheduled to depose Jones at the end of that time rather than Hill. Obviously it was Jones’ death, rather than any action taken by Judge Herlands, that prevented his being deposed at some later date.
Although petitioner had begun to de-emphasize the significance of Kuwait and the Consortium to his claim of conspiracy by Cities at the first argument on Cities’ motion for summary judgment, it was not until after the additional information described above was obtained through Hill’s deposition, and the supporting documents accompanying it, that petitioner began to stress the contention that Cities had undergone a dramatic shift in its attitude towards him in September 1952, immediately after Jones had returned from a trip to Iran arranged for him by Waldron. While it is probably to overstate the case to say, as does respondent, that petitioner abandoned his Kuwait and Consortium claims at this time, it is fair to say that petitioner no longer seriously contended that the evidence relating to them was sufficient in itself to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
After again declining to grant Cities’ motion for summary judgment, Judge Herlands entered an order permitting further discovery of Cities. It provided, as described in more detail, supra, at 268-269, for an examination of those Cities executives still alive who participated in the negotiations between petitioner, Cities, and the Government of Iran. It also directed the production of all documents in Cities’ possession relating to any contemplated dealings in Iranian oil during the period of Waldron’s active contact with Cities, i. e., between June 11, 1952, and October 1, 1952.
This order had the effect of permitting Waldron to examine every surviving Cities official with whom he had dealt to any substantial degree in his attempts to arrange a sale of Iranian oil. He was permitted to examine them, and have production of all documents in connection therewith, concerning all the events that he had specified in his original complaint or in the two previous oral arguments on Cities’ motion for summary judgment as being evidence of Cities’ participation in the alleged conspiracy. Certainly the scope of this order, viewed as of the time it was made, does not seem open to any serious challenge as unduly restrictive, and petitioner did not make any such argument at the time the order was proposed. It was only when petitioner moved for additional discovery in the fall of 1964 that he began seriously to complain about the allegedly limited scope of the prior discovery order. Accordingly, we shall postpone more detailed discussion of this point to Part V, infra.
Petitioner did argue then, and still contends now, that he was prejudiced by the failure of Judge Herlands to let him examine various other Cities executives, in addition to Jones, at the time he was permitted to depose Hill. He bases this contention on the ground that many of these executives were men of advanced years at that time and that the deaths that in fact ensued could thus have been reasonably foreseen. The fallacy in this argument is that it was only after Hill testified that petitioner changed the focus of his argument before the trial judge to minimize the significance of Kuwait and Consortium and to suggest other possible motivations for Cities to. conspire. Certainly Judge Herlands was not required to anticipate that petitioner would change the entire factual emphasis of his case so that individuals who did not at the time appear to be particularly vital to the litigation would subsequently become so. Moreover, petitioner did not even ask to depose any Cities official who subsequently died, other than Jones, at the time he was permitted to examine Hill. Therefore, petitioner’s claim of prejudicial error here must fail also.
III.
In his affidavit in support of Waldron’s motion for additional discovery, petitioner’s attorney detailed the facts produced to date that assertedly showed Cities’ participation in the conspiracy, in order both to support his contention that additional discovery was needed and to demonstrate that summary judgment in favor of Cities should not be granted. We shall first discuss the propriety of Judge Herlands’ award of

Question: What is the court in which the case originated?
年. U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
数. U.S. Court of International Trade
日. U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims
的. U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
月. U.S. Court of Military Review
用. U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals
成. U.S. Customs Court
名. U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
时. U.S. Tax Court
件. Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals
一. U.S. Court for China
请. U.S. Consular Courts
中. U.S. Commerce Court
据. Territorial Supreme Court
码. Territorial Appellate Court
不. Territorial Trial Court
新. Emergency Court of Appeals
文. Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
下. Bankruptcy Court
分. U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
入. U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
人. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
功. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
上. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
户. U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
为. U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
间. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
号. U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
取. U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
回. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
在. U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)
页. Alabama Middle U.S. District Court
字. Alabama Northern U.S. District Court
有. Alabama Southern U.S. District Court
个. Alaska U.S. District Court
作. Arizona U.S. District Court
示. Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court
出. Arkansas Western U.S. District Court
是. California Central U.S. District Court
失. California Eastern U.S. District Court
表. California Northern U.S. District Court
除. California Southern U.S. District Court
加. Colorado U.S. District Court
败. Connecticut U.S. District Court
生. Delaware U.S. District Court
信. District Of Columbia U.S. District Court
类. Florida Middle U.S. District Court
置. Florida Northern U.S. District Court
理. Florida Southern U.S. District Court
本. Georgia Middle U.S. District Court
息. Georgia Northern U.S. District Court
行. Georgia Southern U.S. District Court
定. Guam U.S. District Court
改. Hawaii U.S. District Court
市. Idaho U.S. District Court
期. Illinois Central U.S. District Court
以. Illinois Northern U.S. District Court
修. Illinois Southern U.S. District Court
元. Indiana Northern U.S. District Court
方. Indiana Southern U.S. District Court
录. Iowa Northern U.S. District Court
区. Iowa Southern U.S. District Court
单. Kansas U.S. District Court
位. Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court
型. Kentucky Western U.S. District Court
法. Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court
县. Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court
存. Louisiana Western U.S. District Court
品. Maine U.S. District Court
前. Maryland U.S. District Court
称. Massachusetts U.S. District Court
注. Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court
值. Michigan Western U.S. District Court
输. Minnesota U.S. District Court
建. Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court
能. Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court
大. Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court
例. Missouri Western U.S. District Court
度. Montana U.S. District Court
始. Nebraska U.S. District Court
到. Nevada U.S. District Court
面. New Hampshire U.S. District Court
载. New Jersey U.S. District Court
点. New Mexico U.S. District Court
密. New York Eastern U.S. District Court
动. New York Northern U.S. District Court
果. New York Southern U.S. District Court
图. New York Western U.S. District Court
提. North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
发. North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court
式. North Carolina Western U.S. District Court
国. North Dakota U.S. District Court
登. Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court
错. Ohio Northern U.S. District Court
者. Ohio Southern U.S. District Court
认. Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court
误. Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court
接. Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court
关. Oregon U.S. District Court
重. Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court
第. Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court
地. Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court
如. Puerto Rico U.S. District Court
设. Rhode Island U.S. District Court
目. South Carolina U.S. District Court
开. South Dakota U.S. District Court
事. Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court
可. Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court
要. Tennessee Western U.S. District Court
代. Texas Eastern U.S. District Court
小. Texas Northern U.S. District Court
选. Texas Southern U.S. District Court
标. Texas Western U.S. District Court
明. Utah U.S. District Court
编. Vermont U.S. District Court
求. Virgin Islands U.S. District Court
列. Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court
网. Virginia Western U.S. District Court
万. Washington Eastern U.S. District Court
最. Washington Western U.S. District Court
器. West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court
所. West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court
内. Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court
体. Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court
通. Wyoming U.S. District Court
务. Louisiana U.S. District Court
此. Washington U.S. District Court
商. West Virginia U.S. District Court
序. Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court
化. South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
消. South Carolina Western U.S. District Court
否. Alabama U.S. District Court
保. U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone
使. Georgia U.S. District Court
次. Illinois U.S. District Court
机. Indiana U.S. District Court
对. Iowa U.S. District Court
量. Michigan U.S. District Court
查. Mississippi U.S. District Court
部. Missouri U.S. District Court
性. New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)
和. New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)
更. New York U.S. District Court
后. North Carolina U.S. District Court
证. Ohio U.S. District Court
题. Pennsylvania U.S. District Court
确. Tennessee U.S. District Court
格. Texas U.S. District Court
了. Virginia U.S. District Court
于. Norfolk U.S. District Court
金. Wisconsin U.S. District Court
公. Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court
午. New Jersey U.S. District Court
円. California U.S. District Court
片. Florida U.S. District Court
空. Arkansas U.S. District Court
态. District of Orleans U.S. District Court
管. State Supreme Court
主. State Appellate Court
天. State Trial Court
自. Eastern Circuit (of the United States)
我. Middle Circuit (of the United States)
全. Southern Circuit (of the United States)
今. Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama
来. Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas
正. California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California
说. Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut
意. Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware
送. Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida
容. Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia
已. Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois
结. Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana
会. Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa
段. Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas
计. Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky
源. Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana
色. Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine
時. Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland
交. Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts
系. Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan
过. Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota
电. Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi
询. Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri
符. Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada
未. New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire
程. New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey
常. New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York
条. North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina
当. Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio
情. Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon
口. Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania
合. Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island
车. South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina
实. Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee
组. Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas
版. Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont
周. Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia
址. West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia
记. Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin
二. Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming
同. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
业. Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska
权. Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado
其. Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington
进. Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho
试. Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana
验. Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah
料. South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota
传. North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota
述. Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma
集. Court of Private Land Claims
多. United States Supreme Court
Answer:

Answer: 果