Add to ORKGYour opinion for the Court faithfully reflects the conclusions of the Conference majority, of which I was a part. Seeing it in writing, however, has suggested some problems with which we did not deal
I agree with your dissent in this case and should appreciate your adding my name to your opinion
Dear Chief, I share Tony\u27s concerns. Could not our discussion of Rose v . Rose do the job well en...
Dear Bill: In view of the changes in your second draft, I am happy to join you Per Curiam
Dear Bill: I am about to land somewhere between Brennan and Stevens. Will let you know soon
Dear Bill: In tardy response to your memorandum of February 3, I would be content with footnote two ...
The problem which you raise with respect to the subject of the draft opinion in this case is a real ...
John\u27s dissent suggests more problems with this case than I had fully appreciated and I am going ...
Dear Bill, I have been troubled by the same concerns that bothered Thurgood. If. however, you can re...
Dear Bill, I strongly prefer the second alternative suggested in your memorandum of today. Adoption ...
Dear Bill: This is in response to your memorandum of February 3. My preference, like yours, is the f...
Two cases have been held for Codd v. Velger, No. 75-812, decided February 22, 1977. Both cases prese...
Dear Lewis: When you first circulated your proposed disposition of this case, I wrote you that I wou...
Dear Bill: I had originally intended to dissent but defected and joined your Per Curiam. That, howev...
Please join me in your opinion for the Court in No. 45, Washington v. General Motors Corporation, an...
Correspondence from Rehnquist to White agreeing with the proposed direction that he circulated
I agree with your dissent in this case and should appreciate your adding my name to your opinion
Dear Chief, I share Tony\u27s concerns. Could not our discussion of Rose v . Rose do the job well en...
Dear Bill: In view of the changes in your second draft, I am happy to join you Per Curiam
Dear Bill: I am about to land somewhere between Brennan and Stevens. Will let you know soon
Dear Bill: In tardy response to your memorandum of February 3, I would be content with footnote two ...
The problem which you raise with respect to the subject of the draft opinion in this case is a real ...
John\u27s dissent suggests more problems with this case than I had fully appreciated and I am going ...
Dear Bill, I have been troubled by the same concerns that bothered Thurgood. If. however, you can re...
Dear Bill, I strongly prefer the second alternative suggested in your memorandum of today. Adoption ...
Dear Bill: This is in response to your memorandum of February 3. My preference, like yours, is the f...
Two cases have been held for Codd v. Velger, No. 75-812, decided February 22, 1977. Both cases prese...
Dear Lewis: When you first circulated your proposed disposition of this case, I wrote you that I wou...
Dear Bill: I had originally intended to dissent but defected and joined your Per Curiam. That, howev...
Please join me in your opinion for the Court in No. 45, Washington v. General Motors Corporation, an...
Correspondence from Rehnquist to White agreeing with the proposed direction that he circulated
I agree with your dissent in this case and should appreciate your adding my name to your opinion
Dear Chief, I share Tony\u27s concerns. Could not our discussion of Rose v . Rose do the job well en...
Dear Bill: In view of the changes in your second draft, I am happy to join you Per Curiam