12-07-1971 Correspondence from Stewart to White

Dear Byron, I am glad to join your Per Curiam in this case

12-22-1972 Justice Stewart, Memorandum

This case came here as an appeal, on the representation that Texas courts had sustained the constitutionality of 4.02. c. 4. of the Texas Family Code and Articles 602 and 602a of the Texas Penal Code, over a challenge to those statutes under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We noted probable jurisdiction, 408 U.S. 920, to consider whether the alleged discrimination between legitimate and illegitimate children in terms of the support obligations of their biological fathers denied equal protection to illegitimate children under the principles of Weber v. Actna Cas. & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164. Glona v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., 391 U.S. 73, and Levy v. Louisianna, 391 U.S. 68

06-10-1971 Correspondence from Stewart to Harlan

Dear John, I agree with your memo and would gladly join it if it should become an opinion of the Court. I also think, however, that there is another reason why this conviction cannot stand -- what Bill Brennan calls the Stromberg ground of Sicurella. over the week-end I may try my hand at writing a few words on that subject

04-18-1975 Correspondence from Stewart to Rehnquist

Dear Bill, If you would consider substituting Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments for Sixth Amendment in the 3rd line of the second paragraph on page 2, I would be glad to join the Per Curiam you have circulated in this case

10-31-1969 Justice Stewart, Per Curiam

The appellant sought to run in the November 1968 election as an independent candidate for the United States House of Representatives from the Twenty-First Congressional District of Ohio. His nominating pettition bore the signatures of 899 voters in the congressional district, a little over 1% of those in the district who had voted in the gubernatorial contest at the last election

05-03-1977 Correspondence from Stewart to Burger

Since this case hardly rises to the level of a peewee, since it is late in the Term, and since the vote at our Conference was quite one-sided, I suggest that it might appropriately be disposed of in a one-sentence order along the following lines

05-01-1981 Correspondence from Stewart to Powell

Dear Lewis, It seems to me that Bill Rehnquist\u27s explanation of his continuing preference for a dismiss as improvidently granted has considerable merit. I do not, however, feel strongly about the matter

04-22-1980 Per Curiam

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings in light of the decision of the Court announced today in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. It is so ordered

04-08-1980 Per Curiam

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the ease is remanded to that court for further proceedings in light of the decision of the Court announced today in the City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, at. It is so ordered

06-21-1971 Justice Stewart, Per Curiam

The petitioner was convicted for willfull refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces. 50 U.S.C. 462 (a). The judgement of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We granted certiorari, 400 U.S. 990, to consider whether the induction notice was invalid because grounded upon an erroneous denial of the petitioners\u27 claim to be classified as a conscientious objector