Injunction Litigation Under Sections 10(e), 10(j), and 10(l), Fiscal Year 1987

p. 259. Twelve columns: stub, "Total proceedings", two columns under "Injunction proceedings", "Total dispositions", six columns under "Disposition of injunctions", and "Pending in district court Sept. 30, 1987". The stub has no printed heading, so cell 0 of both heading levels is empty. Row labels: the scan renders the ")(" pairs so that they can look like an "X" (e.g. "8(a)(1X3)"); these are read as "8(a)(1)(3)", "8(a)(1)(3)(5)", "8(b)(4)(A)(B)". The label "8(b)(4)(D); 7(C)" is transcribed as printed, though "7(C)" is an unusual citation and may be a misprint for "8(b)(7)(C)". "Under Sec. 10(e) total": the Total-proceedings cell carries a raised 1 after the zero, transcribed as 0^1. In that same row a small stray mark sits just left of the 0 in the "Granted" column; it is scan dirt, not a minus sign, so the cell is transcribed as 0. Scan artifacts: a short vertical stroke in the "Dismissed" column of the "Under Sec. 10(j) total" row, and a diagonal stroke running from the "Total dispositions" column of the 8(b)(1) row down to the "Under Sec. 10(l) total" row (it touches the 53). None of these are printed characters. Arithmetic as printed: every column of detail lines adds exactly to its section total (10(j) and 10(l) alike), and for both section totals pending Oct. 1 + filed = total proceedings and total proceedings - total dispositions = pending Sept. 30. Individual detail lines do not all balance that way: 8(a)(1)(3) shows 4 pending Sept. 30 where 4 - 1 = 3, and 8(a)(1)(5) shows 0 where 7 - 6 = 1 (the two errors offset within the 10(j) section); likewise 8(b)(4)(B) shows 11 where 49 - 41 = 8, while 8(b)(4)(B); 8(e), 8(b)(4)(D); 7(C) and 8(b)(7)(B) each show 0 where 1 would be expected (offsetting within the 10(l) section). These are transcribed exactly as printed and not corrected.