Injunction Litigation Under Section 10(e), 10(j), and 10(l), Transition Quarter (July-September 1976)

p. 278. Twelve printed columns; the stub column carries no heading, so cell 0 of both heading levels is empty. "Total proceedings", "Total dispositions" and "Pending in district court September 30, 1976" are tall single headings spanning both levels and are repeated in each. Internal-consistency check: every column of the "Under sec 10(j)" block and every column of the "Under sec 10(l)" block adds to its printed total EXCEPT the last column ("Pending in district court September 30, 1976") in the 10(l) block, where the nine detail rows as transcribed sum to 11 against a printed total of 12. The suspect cell is row "8(b)(7)(B)", column "Pending in district court September 30, 1976": that row has total proceedings 1 and total dispositions 0, which implies 1 pending, and 1 there would make the column sum to the printed 12. The glyph reads to me as 0, so it is transcribed as 0 — treat this single cell as doubtful (faint 1 vs 0 in a 300-ppi bitonal scan). Row label "8(b)(3)(B), 7(A)" is doubtful: the third character reads as 3, but a sec. 10(l) proceeding ordinarily rests on 8(b)(4), 8(b)(7) or 8(e), so the printed digit may be a 4 ("8(b)(4)(B), 7(A)"). Transcribed as it appears. The first stub label clearly prints "Under sec." with a period; the "10(j)" and "10(l)" total rows show no period after "sec" in this scan and are transcribed that way, though the period may simply have dropped out in printing/scanning. Row label "8(b)(6)" is slightly broken in the scan but reads as 6. In the column heading "Filed in district court Transition Quarter (July-September)" the scan renders "September" with a damaged "e"; transcribed as the intended word. End-of-line hyphens repaired in "Total proceed-ings", "Total disposi-tions" and "With-drawn".