HOUSEHOLDS. See Constitutional Law, II, 1.

HUSBANDS OF WOMEN IN ARMED FORCES. See Armed

Forces; Constitutional Law, I, 1.

ILLEGAL CONDUCT. See Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1-3.

ILLEGAL SEARCHES. See Constitutional Law, V; Evidence;
Standing.

ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING. See Appeals, 1; Procedure, 7.
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN. See Constitutional Law, II, 1.
IMMUNITY OF STATE. See Fair Labor Standards Act.
IMPRISONMENT. See Civil Rights Act of 1871, 3; Habeas
Corpus, 2; Procedure, 9.

INABILITY TO PAY FILING FEES. See Appeals, 1; Procedure,
7.

INCOME TAXES. See Indians, 1; Taxes, 1.

INCOME TAX EXPENSES. See Administrative Procedure, 4;
Taxes, 4.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCES.

See Civil Rights Act of 1871,

3; Habeas Corpus, 2; Procedure, 9.

INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT. See Indians, 2; Taxes, 3.
INDIANS. See also Taxes, 1, 3.

1. Arizona income tax-Navajo Indians—Income from reservation
sources.—Arizona has no jurisdiction to impose tax on income of
Navajo Indians residing on the Navajo Reservation and whose
income is wholly derived from reservation sources, as is clear from
the relevant treaty with the Navajos and federal statutes. McClana-
han v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, p. 164.

2. Operation of ski resort-State gross receipts and use taxes—
Exemptions-New Mexico may impose gross receipts tax on ski
resort operated by petitioner Tribe on off-reservation land leased
from Federal Government under §5 of the Indian Reorganization
Act, 25 U. S. C. § 465. Though § 465 exempts the land from state
and local taxation, neither it nor the federal-instrumentality doctrine
bars taxing income from the land. But § 465 bars use tax that
State seeks to impose on personalty bought by Tribe out of State
and which, having been installed as a permanent improvement at
the resort, became so intimately connected with the land as to be
covered by the statutory exemption. Mescalero Apache Tribe v.
Jones, p. 145.

INDIGENT PROBATIONERS. See Constitutional Law, I, 2; Pro-
bation; Procedure, 8.

INDUSTRIAL POLLUTANTS. See Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899, 1-2.

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPEALS. See Appeals, 1; Procedure, 7.
INJUNCTIONS. See also Abstention; Civil Rights Act of 1871, 2;

Elections; Optometry; Procedure, 5; Voting Rights Act, 1-4.
Anti-injunction statute-Civil Rights Act-Alabama Board of
Optometry.-Anti-injunction statute did not bar District Court from
issuing injunction since appellees brought their suit, to enjoin
scheduled hearings by the Alabama Board of Optometry, under the
Civil Rights Act. Nor did the rule of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S.
37, or principles of comity require the District Court to dismiss ap-
pellees' suit in view of pending Board proceeding since appellees al-
leged and the court concluded that the Board's bias rendered it in-
competent to adjudicate the issues. Gibson v. Berryhill, p. 564.
IN-PRISON DISCIPLINE. See Civil Rights Act of 1871, 3;
Habeas Corpus, 2; Procedure, 9.

INSIDER'S PROFITS. See Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
INSTALLMENT SALES. See Administrative Procedure, 5; Con-
stitutional Law, III; Penalties.

INTENTIONAL AND FLAGRANT CONDUCT. See Administra-
tive Procedure, 6; Judicial Review, 4.

INTERIM RELIEF. See Elections.

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. See Administrative Procedure,
4; Taxes, 2, 4.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE. See Constitutional Law, V; Evi-
dence; Standing.

INTERVENTION BY CITIES. See Administrative Procedure,
2-3; Federal Power Commission; Judicial Review, 3.

INVALIDATION OF STATUTORY PROGRAM. See Aid to Ed-
ucation; Constitutional Law, IV; Schools, 1.

INVESTIGATIONS. See Administrative Procedure, 2-3; Federal
Power Commission; Judicial Review, 3.

INVESTIGATORS. See Entrapment.

INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940. See Taxes, 2.

INVESTMENTS. See Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES. See Administrative Procedure,
2-3; Federal Power Commission; Judicial Review, 3.

JET AIRCRAFT. See Constitutional Law, VI; Federal-State Re-
lations, 2.

JUDGES. See Constitutional Law, II, 2; Courts; District of
Columbia Code; Procedure, 1.

JUDGMENTS. See also Appeals, 2; Procedure, 6.

Certainty of date-Timeliness of appeals. Provision in Fed. Rule
Civ. Proc. 58 that "[e]very judgment" of a district court "shall be set
forth on a separate document" which, inter alia, starts the time limit
for appeals and post-trial motions running, is a mechanical provision
that must be mechanically applied to render certain the date on
which a judgment is entered. United States v. Indrelunas, p. 216.
JUDICIAL REVIEW. See also Administrative Procedure, 2-3;
Appeals, 1; Constitutional Law, II, 3; Federal Power Commis-
sion; Procedure, 7; Schools, 2.

1. Comptroller of the Currency-Denial of national bank charter-
Standard of review by district courts.-Standard of judicial review
of Comptroller of Currency's denial of national bank charter is
whether his adjudication was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law." District Court
is to review the administrative record already in existence, supple-
mented if necessary by affidavits or testimony amplifying reasons for
Comptroller's decision, and is not authorized to conduct a de novo
hearing in which the "substantial evidence" test is to be applied.
Camp v. Pitts, p. 138.

2. Strict judicial scrutiny-Discrimination-Fundamental constitu-
tional rights.-This case, concerning the Texas school-financing sys-
tem, is not a proper one in which to examine a State's laws under
standards of strict judicial scrutiny, since that test is reserved for
cases involving laws that operate to the disadvantage of suspect
classes or interfere with the exercise of fundamental rights and liber-
ties explicitly protected by the Constitution. San Antonio School
District v. Rodriguez, p. 1.

3. Summary administrative action-Federal Power Commission-
Hearings.-Though the FPC is not necessarily required to hold a
hearing or make a full investigation in all cases, its summary disposi-
tion of proffered objections to the security issue requires strict scru-
tiny by a reviewing court in light of the FPC's obligation to protect
the public interest and enforce the antitrust laws. Unexplained
summary action is incompatible with the requirements of § 204 of

JUDICIAL REVIEW-Continued.

the Federal Power Act and precludes appropriate judicial review.
Gulf States Utilities Co. v. FPC, p. 747.

4. Suspension of stockyard operator-Packers and Stockyards
Act-Court of Appeals.-In setting aside 20-day suspension order
against stockyard operator for short-weighting, Court of Appeals
exceeded scope of proper judicial review of administrative sanctions,
since Secretary of Agriculture had full authority to make the suspen-
sion order as a deterrent to violations whether intentional or negli-
gent, and issuance of order against respondent, who had ignored
previous warnings against short-weighting, was not an abuse of
administrative discretion. Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm'n Co.,
p. 182.

JURISDICTION. See also Antitrust Acts; Appeals, 2; Civil
Rights Act of 1871, 1; Courts; District of Columbia Code; Fed-
eral Maritime Commission; Indians, 1; Judgments; Procedure,
6; Taxes, 1.

1. Diversity of citizenship-State law claims-Political subdi-
visions.-District Court erred in rejecting petitioner's state law claim
against the County, which under California law has an independent
status, on the basis of diversity of citizenship, since diversity juris-
diction extends to a State's political subdivision that is not simply
the arm or alter ego of the State, Cowles v. Mercer County, 7 Wall.
118. Moor v. County of Alameda, p. 693.

2. Pendent jurisdiction-Claims against a county-Civil Rights Act
suit. Even assuming, arguendo, that the District Court had ju-
dicial power to exercise pendent jurisdiction over petitioners'
state law claims which would require that the County be brought in
as new party defendant, against which petitioners could not state a
federally cognizable claim, in addition to the individual defendants
against whom they could assert such a claim, the court did not abuse
its discretion in not exercising that power in view of unsettled
questions of state law that it would have been called upon to resolve
and the likelihood of jury confusion resulting from the special
defenses to a county available under the state tort claims law.
Moor v. County of Alameda, p. 693.

JURY SELECTION. See Pleas, 2; Procedure, 3, 10; Waivers.
LABOR. See Fair Labor Standards Act.

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. See Civil Rights Act of
1871, 1; Jurisdiction, 1-2.

LAWYERS. See Constitutional Law, I, 2; Pleas, 2; Probation;
Procedure, 3, 8.

LEASED LANDS. See Indians, 2; Taxes, 3.

LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT. See Voting Rights Act,
1-4.

LEGITIMATE STATE PURPOSES. See Constitutional Law, II,
3; Judicial Review, 2; Schools, 2.

LICENSED OPTOMETRISTS. See Abstention; Civil Rights Act
of 1871, 2; Injunctions; Optometry; Procedure, 5.

LIVESTOCK DEALERS. See Administrative Procedure, 6; Ju-
dicial Review, 4.

LOAD FUNDS. See Taxes, 2.

LOCAL CONTROL OF SCHOOLS. See Constitutional Law, II,
3; Judicial Review, 2; Schools, 2.

LOCAL TAXATION. See Constitutional Law, II, 3; Judicial
Review, 2; Schools, 2.

"LOCK-IN" DEMONSTRATIONS. See Civil Rights Act of 1964,
1-3.

MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS. See Administrative Procedure,
5; Constitutional Law, III; Penalties.

MAJORITY RUNOFF ELECTIONS. See Voting Rights Act, 1-4.
MANUFACTURING DRUGS. See Entrapment.

MARITIME DAMAGE. See Federal-State Relations, 1; Pollution.
MARKET AGENCIES. See Administrative Procedure, 6; Judicial
Review, 4.

MARKET VALUE. See Taxes, 2.

MARRIED PARENTS. See Constitutional Law, II, 1.

MARRIED WOMEN. See Armed Forces; Constitutional Law, I, 1.

MEDICAL AND DENTAL BENEFITS. See Armed Forces; Con-
stitutional Law, I, 1.

MERCHANT SHIPPING. See Antitrust Acts; Federal Maritime
Commission.

MERCHANT SHIPS. See Federal-State Relations, 1; Pollution.
MERGERS. See Antitrust Acts; Federal Maritime Commission;
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE. See Indians, 2; Taxes, 3.
METHAMPHETAMINES. See Entrapment.