prejudice to Sarah, however, I see little chance that this argument will receive plenary review.

Applicants argue doggedly that the equities in this case favor continuation of their visitation privileges pending disposition of their case by this Court. They rely in particular upon affidavits by various child psychologists indicating that such visits would not harm Sarah and actually would assist her in overcoming the trauma of removal from applicants' home. The Court of Appeal also was presented with these affidavits, however, and concluded on the basis of all the evidence that further visitation would not be in Sarah's best interest. In a passage I consider quite telling, that court stated:

"The concealment of [applicants'] marital difficulties and [their] failure to report their separation suggests that the initial placement may have been sought in an effort to salvage a failing marriage. It is unfortunate when natural parents resort to such practices; to permit adoption to be used for such purpose would be a serious breach of duty on the part of the Agency." 99 Cal. App. 3d, at 173, 160 Cal. Rptr., at 64.

Removed as I am from the actual events at issue by nearly 3,000 miles and by several layers of judicial proceedings, I decline to make my own assessment of Sarah's best interests and instead defer to the amply supported conclusions of the courts below.

The application is accordingly

Denied.

INDEX

ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL. See Habeas

Corpus.

ADOPTION. See Stays, 1.

ADVERTISING BY ATTORNEYS. See Civil Rights Act of 1871, 2.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES. See Constitutional Law, II, 2.
AIDING AND ABETTING. See Sentences.

AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN. See Constitu-
tional Law, III, 1.

AIR POLLUTION. See Judicial Review.

"AIRPORT" SEARCHES. See Constitutional Law, IV.

ANNEXATIONS. See Voting Rights Act of 1965.

ANTITRUST ACTS.

Beer wholesalers-Agreement to eliminate credit to retailers-Per se
illegality. An alleged agreement among beer wholesalers to eliminate short-
term trade credit to retailers and to require them to make payment in
cash, either in advance or upon delivery, falls squarely within traditional
antitrust rule of per se illegality of price fixing, without further examina-
tion under rule of reason. Catalano, Inc. v. Target Sales, Inc., p. 643.
APPEALS. See Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976; Fed-
eral Rules of Civil Procedure, 2.

ARKANSAS. See Stays, 2.

ARMED ASSAULTS. See Sentences.

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

Corpus; Criminal Law.

See Constitutional Law, V; Habeas

AT-LARGE ELECTIONS. See Constitutional Law, III, 2.

ATTORNEY GENERAL. See Constitutional Law, VI; Voting Rights
Act of 1965, 2, 3.

ATTORNEY'S FEES. See Civil Rights Act of 1871, 2; Civil Rights

Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976.

BACKPAY. See Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“BAILOUT” PROCEDURES. See Voting Rights Act of 1965, 1.

BEER WHOLESALERS. See Antitrust Acts.

BENEFICIARIES OF TRUST. See Jurisdiction.

BOARDS OF EDUCATION. See Constitutional Law, VI; Voting
Rights Act of 1965.

BODY SEARCHES. See Constitutional Law, IV, 1.

BROADCASTING. See Stays, 3.

BROKERS. See Securities Regulation.

BURDEN OF PLEADING. See Civil Rights Act of 1871, 1.

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. See Indians.

BUSINESS TRUSTS. See Jurisdiction.

BUY INDIAN ACT. See Indians.

CALIFORNIA. See Stays, 1, 2, 5.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. See Constitutional Law, II, 2.
CAUSES OF ACTION. See also Constitutional Law, I.

Maritime law-Injury to harbor worker-Wife's loss-of-society claim.-
New York Court of Appeals' judgment holding that in harbor worker's
state-court action against shipowner to recover damages, on grounds of
negligence and unseaworthiness, for personal injuries sustained while work-
ing aboard vessel in New York waters, harbor worker may amend his
complaint to add his spouse as a plaintiff for loss of society under general
maritime law, is affirmed. American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez, p. 274.
CERTIFICATION OF JUDGMENTS AS FINAL. See Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, 2.

CHILD LABOR. See Constitutional Law, II, 1.

CHIROPRACTORS. See Limitation of Actions, 2.

CITY ELECTIONS. See Constitutional Law, III, 2; VI; Voting Rights
Act of 1965.

CIVIL PENALTIES. See Constitutional Law, II, 1.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871. See also Limitation of Actions, 2.

1. Qualified immunity of public official-Good faith-Pleading.-In an
action brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against a public official whose
position might entitle him to qualified immunity, plaintiff is not required
to allege that defendant acted in bad faith in order to state a claim for
relief, but burden is on defendant to plead good faith as an affirmative
defense. Gomez v. Toledo, p. 635.

2. State prohibition of attorney advertising-Immunity from suit-
Award of attorney's fees.-While Virginia Supreme Court and its members

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871-Continued.

are immune from suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 as to their legislative acts
in promulgating Code of Professional Responsibility, court and its chief
justice were properly held liable in their enforcement capacities in suit for
injunctive and declaratory relief against Code's prohibition of attorney
advertising, but District Court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's
fees under Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 against Vir-
ginia Supreme Court premised on conduct enjoying absolute legislative
immunity. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United
States, Inc., p. 719.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.

Sex discrimination-EEOC action against employer-Classwide relief.-
In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's action under Title VII
of Act alleging discrimination by defendant employer against female em-
ployees, Commission may seek classwide relief under § 706 (f) (1) of Title
VII without being certified as class representative under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23. General Telephone Co. v. EEOC, p. 318.

CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY'S FEES AWARDS ACT OF 1976. See
also Civil Rights Act of 1871, 2.

Right to fees on appeal.-In respondents' action under certain civil
rights statutes, they were not "prevailing" parties under Act entitled to
attorney's fees on appeal, where Court of Appeals merely reversed District
Court's directed verdicts for petitioners, remanded for a new trial, and
ruled on discovery matters without upholding merits of any of respondents'
claims. Hanrahan v. Hampton, p. 754.

CLASS ACTIONS. See Civil Rights Act of 1964.

CLEAN AIR ACT. See Judicial Review.

“COMMENCEMENT" OF ACTION. See Limitation of Actions, 1.
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. See Constitutional Law, I.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST. See Habeas Corpus, 2, 3.

CONSENT TO SEARCH. See Constitutional Law, IV, 1.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See also Civil Rights Act of 1871, 2; Crim-
inal Law; Habeas Corpus; Limitation of Actions, 2.

I. Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

Death of federal prisoner-Action for damages.-A federal-court remedy
against federal prison officials for compensatory and punitive damages,
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, is
available to a mother alleging that her son, while a federal prisoner,
suffered personal injuries from which he died because such officials violated