text:
Anthology (8th-? c.). Four Treatises on the Principles and Practice of Tibetan Medicine, Including an Extremely Rare 8th Century Manuscript. LTWA, Dharamsala. 1980. pp. 96. Contents: Ri bo gangs can gyi dka’ ‘grel bdud rtsi zla ba’i ‘od zer; Ma la yi’i dka’ ‘grel ‘dod pa ‘jo ba; Phyi ma rgyud rtsa mdo’i ‘grel pa slob dpon mkhas pa mdzad pa; Sngo sbyor gyi ‘khrungs dpe man ngag rin chen spungs pa; Rin chen ‘khrungs dpe. Dating must be examined.
Anonymous (9th c.?). Tun hong nas thon pa’i bod kyi gso rig yig cha bdam sgrigs. Luo Bingfen; Huang Bufan, Editors. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. 1983. pp. 107. Dunhuang Tibetan manuscripts. More in Choix?
Grwa pa Mngon shes (1012-?). Rgyud Bźi: A Reproduction of a Set of Prints from the 1988 Lha-sa Lcags-po-ri Blocks. T. S. Tashigangpa, Leh. 1978. The Rgyud bzhi.
_____. Rgyud bźi: A Reproduction of a Set of Prints from the 18th Century Zun-cu Ze Blocks from the Collections of Raghu Vira. S. W. Tashigangpa, Leh. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod v. 68. Chinese block print edition of the Rgyud bzhi.
_____. Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang. 1982. pp. 2, 8, 669. Modern edition of the Rgyud bzhi, based on the ? edition.
_____. Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud. Bod kyi lcags po ri’i drang rten slob gnyer khang, Delhi. 1993. pp. 424, ill. Modern edition of the Rgyud bzhi, based on the ? edition.
_____. Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud las dum bu. Imperial Printing Press, Dharamsala. 1967? v.1, ill. Selections from the Rgyud bzhi.
_____. Bshad rgyud le’u nyer gnyis pa cha byad. New Delhi, s. n. 1967? ill. 57×76 cm. Illustrations of surgical instruments from chapter twenty-two of the Bshad rgyud.
Ye shes gzung/Dzña na dha ri. (12th c.) Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud las bshad pa’i rgyud kyi ‘grel pa ‘bum nag gsal sgron. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. 1998. pp. 4, 270. Early commentary on Bshad rgyud.
Yon tan mgon po, G.yu thog (1126-1202). Yuthok’s Treatise on Tibetan Medicine. Lokesh Chandra, ed. International Academy of Indian Culture, New Delhi. 1968. pp. 4, 538. Śata-pitaka v. 72. Modern edition.
_____. G.yu thog cha lag bco brgyad: A Corpus of Tibetan Medical Teachings Attributed to G’yu-thog the Physician. Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, Delhi. 1976. Reproduced from a set prints from 17th c. Lhasa Zhol blocks. vv. 2. Blockprint edition.
Brang ti Dpal ldan ‘tsho byed (early 14th c.). Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud kyi spyi don shes bya rab gsas rgyas pa. incomplete manuscript, 48 fols.
‘Brong rtse Lha sras Rin chen rgya mtsho (14th c.). ‘Brong rtse’i be’u bum dkar po: A Collection of Esoteric Medical Prescriptions and Magical Formulae fro the Alleviation of Various Ailments. Damchoe Sangpo, Delhi. 1983. pp. 355. Student of Dge legs dpal bzang (1385-1438).
_____. ‘Brong rtse be’u bum. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lha sa. 1987. pp. 4, 117. Pecha 11x55cm.
_____. ‘Brong rtse be’u bum. Tsering Paljor, Leh. 1975.
Rin chen grub, Bu ston (1290-1364). Gso ba rig pa’i man ngag sbyor ba brgyad pa’i mchan. Lha sa Zhol Gsung ‘bum, v. 24. ff.10. (TOH 5196).
Dkon mchog bde legs, Gong sman (15th c.). Gso rig dgos pa kun ‘byung: An Exhaustive Treatise on Tibetan Medicine. S. W. Tashigangpa, Leh. 1971-1976. vv. 3. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod vv. 24-16. Born in the eighth rab ‘byung (1447-1506). Manuscript from Ladakh.
_____. Commentaries on the Rtsa rgyud, Bshad rgyud, and Phyi ma rgyud (three of the four medical tantras). T. Sonam Tashigang, Leh. 1977. pp. 271. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod v. 84. Includes the Rgyud bzhi rnam nges dpag bsam ljon shing by Bkra shis dpal ‘byor.
Skyem pa Tshe dbang (15th c.). Rgyud bzhi’i rnam bshad. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 2000. pp. 3, 9, 1247.
_____. Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud kyi ‘grel pa mtshams su bab pa las bshad pa’i rgyud kyi rnam par bshad pa tshig don nyi ma. Mkhas dbang skyem pa tshe dbang mchog gis mdzad pa’i rgyud bzhi’i ‘grel pa. Bod gzhung sman rtsis khang, Dharamsala. 1998. volume 1, pp. 103-592. Commentary on the Bshad rgyud. Need full cite for both volumes.
_____. Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud las rtsa ba’i rgyud kyi ‘bru ‘grel legs bshad smra ba mchog thob. Mkhas dbang skyem pa tshe dbang mchog gis mdzad pa’i rgyud bzhi’i ‘grel pa. Bod gzhung sman rtsis khang, Dharamsala. 1998. volume 1, pp. 1-102. Commentary on the Rtsa rgyud.
Don dam smra ba’i seng ge (15th c.). Bshad mdzod yid bzhin nor bu. Need full cite. Contains chapter on medicine.
Rnam rgyal grags bzang, Byang pa (1395-1475). Bshad rgyud kyi ‘grel chen bdud rtsi’i chu rgyun. si khron dpe skrun khang, Khreng tu’u. 2001. Series: Bod kyi gso rig dpe rnying phyogs sgrigs gangs ri dkar po’i phreng ba 2. Jangdag Namgyel Tragzang (1395-1475) was the ruler of the Lato Jang myriarchy and a famous lay scholar specializing in astrology, medicine and the Kalachakra. This commentary on the second of the four medical tantras was written in 1463, his 68th year.
Dpal ‘byor bzang po (15th c.). Rgya bod kyi yig tshang mkhas pa dga’ byed chen mo ‘dzam gling gsal ba’i me long (1434). Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang. 1985. Contains chapter on medical history.
Dkon mchog ‘phan dar, Gong sman (1511-1577). Nyams yig brgya rtsa la rlung nad bcos pa’i yig chung nas chang nad bcos pa’i yig chung gi bar. Bod gzhung sman rtsis khang, Rda ram sa la. 1997. pp. 23, 159.
_____. Nyams yig brgya rtsa: The Smallest Collection of Gongsman Dkon-mchog-phan-dar’s Medical Instructions to his Students. Sonam W. Tashigang, Leh. 1969. pp. 5, 16, 104. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod v. 1.
_____. Nyam yig brgya rtsa. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Lanzhou. 1999. pp. 7, 221. On diseases and remedies.
Bdud rtsi ‘gyur med (16th c.). Gso ba rig pa’i gzhung rgyud don snying po dgos ‘dod kun’byung zhes bya ba lhun sdings sman grong gyi khyad bcos. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Lanzhou. pp. 5, 2, 320. Remedies for different diseases. Based upon the Rgyud bzhi.
Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba (1504-1564). Dam pa’i chos kyi ‘khor lo bsgyur ba rnams kyi byung ba gsal bar byed pa mkhas pa’i dga’ ston. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang. 1986. Contains chapter on medical history.
Blo gros rgyal po, Zur mkhar ba (1509-?). Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud kyi tshig don phyin ci ma log par ‘grel ba mes po’i zhal lung zhes bya ba las dum bu gnyis pa bshad pa’i rgyud kyi rnam bshad. Rgyud bzhi’i ‘grel pa mes po’i zhal lung. Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, Beijing. stod cha (volume one), pp. 89-668.
_____. Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud kyi tshig don phyin ci ma log par ‘grel ba mes po’i zhal lung zhes bya ba las dum bu dang po rtsa ba’i rgyud kyi rnam bshad. Rgyud bzhi’i ‘grel pa mes po’i zhal lung. Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, Beijing. stod cha (volume one), pp. 1-88.
_____. Me po’i źal lung: A Detailed Commentary on the Four Tibetan Medical Tantras. T. S. Tashigang. Leh. 1980-1985. vv. 4. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spenzod vv. 100-103. Lhasa old Zhol Dga’ ldan phun tshogs gling blocks.
G.yu rung rin chen (16th c.?). Man ngag rin po che’i gter mdzod: A Treatise on Tibetan Medical Practice of the Brang-ti Tradition. Dodrup Chen Rinpoche, Gangtok. 1974. Written on the basis of the instructions of his teacher, Brang ti Dge bshes Dpal ldan rgyal mtshan.
Anthology (16th c.?). Gser bre chen mo: A Collection of Medical Formulae and Incantations of the Brang-ti. T. Paljor Emchi, Leh. 1975. pp. 136.
Dkon mchog chos grags (1646-1718). Gso byed gnyen po stong dang rtsa gnyis kyi grangs nges zhal lung mdzes rgyan. Kan lho bod sman zhib ‘jug khang, Lan kru’u. 1985.
Ngag dbang (17th c.). Snga na med pa’i bstan bcos chen po bai dūrya dkar po las ‘phros pa’i snyan sgron nyis brgya brgyad pa. The Vaidurya G.ya’ sel of Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas-rgya-mtsho. T. Tsepal Taikhang, New Delhi. 1971. volume 1, pp. 1-127. Questions to Sde srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho.
Ngag dbang dkon mchog bstan rgyal (17th c.) Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud las dum bu bzhi pa phyi ma rgyud kyi gzhung dang ‘grel mun sel sgron me. T. S. Tashigang, Leh. 1979. pp. 145. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod v. 97. Manuscript. Commentary on the fourth of the Four Medical Treatises.
_____. Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud las dum bu bzhi pa phyi ma rgyud kyi gzhung dang ‘grel mun sel sgron me. Damcho Sangpo, Delhi. 1979. pp. 494. Manuscript.
Blo bzang chos grags, Dar mo Sman rams pa (1638-1697/1700 [or 1710]). Rje btsun g.yu thog yon tan mgon po rnying ma’i rnam par thar pa bka’ rgya ma gzi brjid rin po che’i gter mdzod. Yu thog gsar rnying gi rnam thar. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang. 1982. pp. 1-313.
_____. Dus gsum gyi rgyal ba sras bcas kyi mkhyen brtse’i spyi gzugs mkhas pa dang grub pa’i pha rol tu son pa rigs brgya’i khyab bdag g.yu thog gsar ma yon tan mgon po’i rnam par thar pa. Yu thog gsar rnying gi rnam thar. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang. 1982. pp. 315-348.
_____. Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud dum bu gsum pa man ngag rgyud kyi dka’ ‘grel legs bshad gser rgyan. Rgyud bzhi’i ‘grel pa mes po’i zhal lung. Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, Beijing. smad cha (volume two), pp. 1-527.
_____. Bdu rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud dum bu bzhi pa phyi ma ‘phrin las rgyud kyi chu mdo man gyi ‘grel pa zhal lung gnyis pa dka’ gnad rdo rje’i mdud ‘grol. Rgyud bzhi’i ‘grel pa mes po’i zhal lung. Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, Beijing. smad cha (volume two), pp. 530-782.
Blo bzang ‘phrin la, Dza ya Pandita (1642-1708). Śākya’i btsun pa blo bzang ‘phrin las kyi zab pa dang rgya che ba’i dam pa’i chos kyi thob yig gsal ba’i me long. Collected Works, vv. 3-4. Includes a lengthy section on mecial literature. Studied medicine with Gling stod Zhabs drung Blo bzang rgya mtsho.
Mi pham dge legs rnam rgyal, Bod mkhas pa (1618-1685). Gso rig gzhi lam ‘bras bu’i rnam gzhag la dpyad pa’i dri lan legs bshad rin po che’i snang ba gsar pa: Replies to Zur-mkhar Blo-gros-rgyal-po’s Queries Regarding the Four Medical Texts Being a Buddhist Literature. Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, Dharamsala. 1986. pp. 76. Composed 1670. Explanatory note to Zur mkhar’s queries on the Rgyud bzhi, making extensive use of canonical citations.
Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, Sde srid (1653-1705). Mchod sdong ‘dzam gling rgyan gcig rten gtsug lag khang dang bcas pa’i dkar chag thar gling rgya mtshor bgrod pa’i gru rdzings byin rlabs kyi bang mdzod. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang. 1990.
_____. Bstan bcos bai dūr dkar po las dri lan ‘khrul snang g.ya sel don gyi bzhin ras ston byed (1687). The Vaidurya G.ya’ sel of Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas-rgya-mtsho. T. Tsepal Taikhang, New Delhi. 1971. volumes 1-2, pp. 129-1078.
_____. Dpal mnyam med ri bo dga’ ldan pa’i bstan pa zhwa ser cod pan ‘chang ba’i ring lugs chos thams cad kyi rtsa ba gsal bar byed pa’i baidū rya ser po’i me long. Krung go bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang. 1991. History of the Dge lugs pa, with scattered references to medical activities.
_____. Dpal ldan gso ba rig pa’i khog ‘bugs legs bshad bai durya’i me long drang srong dgyes pa’i dga’ ston. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang. 1982. A history of medicine. Composed 1703.
_____. Phug lugs rtsis kyi legs bshad mkhas pa’i mgul rgyan bai òür dkar po’i do shal dpyod ldan snying nor (1673). Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang. 1996. 2 volumes. Treatise on astrological lore, with mention of medical matters.
_____. Bai dūr sngon po: Being the Texts of the Gso ba rig pa’i bstan bcos sman bla’i dgongs rgyan rgyud bźi gsal byed bai dūr sngon po ma lli kā. Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas-rgya-mtsho’s Detailed Synthetic Treatise on the Rgyud bźi, the Fundamental Exposition of Tibetan Ayurvedic Medicine. Lha sa Lcags po ri Rig byed ‘gro phan glin blocks, 1888-1892. S. W. Tashigangpa, Leh. 1973. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod vv. 51-54.
_____. Man ngag yon tan rgyud kyi lhan thabs zug rngu’i tsha gdung sel ba’i katpü ra dus min ‘chi zhags gcod pa’i ral gri. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Ziling. 1991. pp. 3, 10, 667. Composed 1691. See also 1991, pp. 575, 9x45cm Pecha. Need full cite.
_____. Man ngag yon tan rgyud kyi lhan thabs zug rngu’i tsha gdung sel ba’i katpü ra dus min ‘chi zhags gcod pa’i ral gri. Lhasa, s. n. ff. 288. Lcags po ri Rig byed ‘gro phan gling blocks. [LC Class: R127.5.S265 1950z].
_____. Gso ba rig pa’i bstan bcos sman bla’i dgongs rgyan rgyud bźi gsal byed bai dūr sngon po ma lli kā: Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas-rgya-mtsho’s Detailed Commentary on the Rgyud bźi, the Fundamental Text of Tibetan Ayurvedic Medicine. S. W. Tashigangpa, Leh. 1974. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod vv. 69-72. Early 18th c. Chinese blocks from the collections of Raghu Vira.
_____. Gso ba rig pa’i bstan bcos sman bla’i dgongs rgyan rgyud bzhi’i gsal byed bai dūr sngon po’i ma lli ka. D. L. Tashigang, Leh. 1981. vv. 4. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod vv. 107-110. Composed 1688. Sde dge blockprint; 1748.
_____. Gso ba rig pa’i bstan bcos sman bla’i dgongs rgyan rgyud bzhi’i gsal byed bai dūr sngon po’i ma lli ka. Bod gzhung dbus sman rtsis khang, Dharamsala. 1994. vv. 2. Sde dge print.
_____. Gso ba rig pa’i bstan bcos sman bla’i dgongs rgyan rgyud bzhi’i gsal byed bai dūr sngon po’i ma lli ka. India, s. n. vv. 2. (OAN: LC Tib 65). Sde dge print.
_____. Gso ba rig pa’i bstan bcos sman bla’i dgongs rgyan rgyud bzhi’i gsal byed bai dūr sngon po’i ma lli ka. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lha sa. 1982. pp. 1468. vv. 2. Modern edition of the Bai dur sngon po based on a Sde dge print.
_____. Gso rig sman gyi khog ‘bugs. Bod gzhung sman rtsis khang, Dharamsala. 1994. pp. 2, 573. Edition of the Khog ‘bugs.
_____. Ayurveda in Tibet: A Survey of the History and Literature of Lamaist Medicine. Sonam W. Tashigang, Leh. 1970. pp. 148. The Khog ‘bugs. Print?.
_____. Lamaist Medical Practice: Being the Texts of the Man ngag yon tan rgyud kyi lhan thabs zug rngu’i tsha gdung sel ba’i katpü ra dus min ‘chi zhags gcod pa’i ral gri. T. S. Tashigangpa, Leh. 1978. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod v. 86. Sde dge blocks produced 1733.
_____. Techniques of Lamaist Medical Practice: Being the Text of Man ngag yon tan rgyud kyi lhan thabs zug rngu’i tsha gdung sel ba’i katpu ra dus min ‘chi zhags gcod pa’i ral gri. S. E. Tashigangpa, Leh. 1970. pp. 5, 146. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod v. 5.
Klong rdol ngag dbang blo bzang (1719-1794). Bka’ gdams pa dang dge lugs pa’i bla ma rags rim gyi gsum ‘bum dkar chag. Klong rdol ngag dbang blo bzang gi gsung ‘bum. Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, Lhasa. 1991. volume 2, pp. 495-638.
_____. Bdud rtsi sman gyi rnam dbye ngo bo nus ming rgyas par bshad pa drin med shel phreng (1727). Principles of Lamaist Pharmacognosy. Tashi Yangphel Tashigang, Leh. 1970. pp. 51-462. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod v. 6. Lcags po ri blockprint (1905).
_____. Bdud nad gzhom pa’i gnyen po rtsi sman gyi nus pa rkyang bshad gsal ston dri med shel gong. Principles of Lamaist Pharmacognosy. Tashi Yangphel Tashigang, Leh. 1970. pp. 1-?
_____. Lag len gces rigs bsdus pa sman kun bcud du bsgrub pa’i las kyi cho ga kun gsal snang mdzod. Principles of Lamaist Pharmacognosy. Tashi Yangphel Tashigang, Leh. 1970. pp. 463-.
_____. Me btsa’i gdams pa rgyas spros gsal ston śel dkar me long: A Incomlete Manuscript Containing Instructions on the Methods of Moxibustion and Acupuncture in Tibetan Medicine. Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Community, Dolanji. 1983. pp. 116. Manuscript.
_____. Shel gong Shel ‘phreng. Bod gzhung dbus sman rtsis khang, Dharamsala. 1994. pp. 22, 537.
_____. Dri med śel gong and Dri med śel phreng: Dil-dmar Dge-bśes Bstan-‘dzin-phun-tshogs’ Presentation of the Principals [sic] of Tibetan pharmacognosy and materia medica. D. W. Tashigang, Leh. 1983. pp. 3, 50, 37, 488. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod v. 113. Based on the 1980 movable type edition, based upon the Sde dge print.
Ye shes dpal ‘byor, Sum pa Mkhan po (1704-1788). Chos ‘byung dpag bsam ljon bzang (1748). Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang. 1992.
_____. Gso dpyad rgya mtsho’i snying nor mdor bsdus bdud rtsi’i chu rgyun. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 1994. pp. 73.
_____. Gso rig gsun rtsom phyogs bsgrigs. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 1994. pp. 3, 3, 8, 608. Collection.
Rol pa’i rdo rje, Lcang skya (17). Rgyal ba’i dbang po thams cad mkhyen gzigs rdo rje ‘chang blo bzang bskal bzang rgya mtsho dpal bzang po zhal snga nas kyi rnam par thar pa mdo tsam brjod pa dpag bsam rin po che’i snye ma. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lhasa. 1990. 2 volumes. Biography of the Seventh Dalai Lama, containing scattered references to medical activities.
Anthology (18th c.). Man ngag phan bde ‘bum phrag and Man ngag phan bde’i yang snying: Two Treatises on Lamaist Medical Practice during the 18th Century. Sonam W. Tashigang, Leh. 1969. pp. 472. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod v. 2. Ladakhi manuscript, introduction by Lharje Tashi Yangphel. Contents: Dpal ldan gso ba rig pa’i man ngag lun las zab gces yang bcud bsdus pa phan bde ‘bum phrag, Drang srong Dharma; Gso ba rig pa’i man ngag zab mo gsang ba kun ‘dus phan bde’i yang snying, Dpal gyi ming can; Man ngag lhan thabs kyi sman ming go dka’ ba’i mtshon lag len zin bris; Ma gcig grub pa’i rgyal mo’i rdzas kyi tshe sgrub; Rten ‘brel khrul gyi me rtsa byed thabs, O rgyan pa; Rin chen lcags kyi bcud len; Bad khrag ‘dus nad chen mo’i zab bcos, Tshe dbang rdo rje.
Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan, Dbal mang (1764-1853). Mdo smad bstan pa’i ‘byung gnas dpal ldan bkra shis ‘khyil gyi gdan rabs rang bzhin dbyangs su brjod pa’i lha’i rnga bo che (1800). Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang. 1987. Contains a history of the medical college at Bla brang Bkra shis ‘khyil.
Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas (1801-). Yul mdo smad kyi ljongs su thub bstan rin po che ji ltar dar ba’i tshul gsal bar brjod pa deb ther rgya mtsho. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang.
Khams smyon Dharma Seng ge (19th c.). G.yu thog sñing thig gi yig cha: The Collected Basic Texts and Ritual Works of the Medical Teachings Orally Passed from G’yu-thog Yon-tan-mgon-po. D. L. Tashigang, Leh. 1981. pp. 591. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod v. 106. Lcags po ri prints 1888. Pecha.
_____. Rlabs chen rgyal ba’i spyod pa las sman sgrub drang srong dgongs pa’i rgyan. Delhi. 1973. pp. 70. Ritual for preparing pills according to G.yu thog snying thig.
Gu ru bkra shis (19th c.). Bstan pa’i snying po gsang chen snga ‘gyur nges don zab mo’i chos kyi byung ba gsal bar byed pa’i legs bshad mkhas pa dga’ byed ngo mtshar gtam gyi rol mtsho. Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang. 1990.
_____. Rin chen dngul chu’i sbyor ba’i rtogs pa brjod pa’i gtam ngo mtshar ‘chi med grub pa’i rna rgyan. Sman yig phyogs bsgrigs. pp. 486-533.
_____. Rin-chen dngul chu sbyor sde phyogs bsdebs: Collected Works on Mercury Formulations. LTWA, Dharamsala. pp. 442. Manuscripts, Sde dge prints.
_____. Lus la nyer mkho skabs brgyad pa. Sman yig phyogs bsgrigs. pp. 669-705.
_____. Zin tig. Council of Religious Affairs of H. H. the Dalai Lama, Dharamsala. 1965. pp. 4, 217.
Karma rgyal mtshan (20th c?). ‘Tsho byed las dang po ba la nye bar mkho ba’i zin tig gces par bsdus pa’i kha skong yang tig sman gyi sbyor sde ‘chi med bdud rtsi’i bcud len. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Lanzhou. 1996. pp. 2, 215. Clinical notes for the preparations of drugs.
Karma chos ‘phel (20th c.) Bdud rtsi sman gyi ‘khrungs dpe legs bshad nor bu’i phreng mdzes. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lhasa. 1993. pp. 7, 27, 5, 770, 10; 16 p. color ill. Plants and their usage.
Karma don grub dpal ldan bsod nams dbang phyug tshe ring rnam par gyal ba’i lha (19th/20th c.).‘Tsho byed las dang po pa la nye bar mkho ba’i zin tig bdud rtsi thig pa’i skabs nye bar mkho ba’i bsdus pa dgos dgu’i bang mdzod baidūrya’i lde’u mig. LTWA, Dharamsala. 1985. pp. 235. Pecha. An introduction to the fundamentals of Tibetan medicine according to the medical preparations and methods of treatment described in ‘Jam mgon Kong sprul’s Zin tig bdud rtsi thig pa by the lord of Lha thog. edited from a print.
Karma ‘phrin las, Ed. (20th c.). Bka’ ‘gyur las gsungs pa’i rang byung tshan rig gi cha shas lus khams nyi ma’i gnyen pa mdo tsam bstan pa. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lha sa. 1988, 1993. Excerpts from the Bka’ ‘gyur on medicine.
Klu byams rgyal, Bya mdo (1967-). Bod lugs gso rig gi sems khams rig pa dus rabs khye’u gsar bu’i rang mdangs. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lha sa. 1996. pp. 5, 2, 169. Pscychology. Bibliography pp. 164-169.
Klu ‘bum rgyal (20th c.). Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud las dum bu dang po dpal ldan rtsa ba’i rgyud kyi ‘grel pa sman bla’i dgongs rgyan. Lan kru’u : Kan su’u Mi rigs Dpe skrun Khang, Lan kru’u. 1995. pp. 9, 317.
Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan (1965-). ‘Tsho byed las dang po ba la nye bar mkho ba gangs can gso rigs rgya mtsho’i ‘jug ngogs. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. 1996. pp. 2, 20, 327.
Dkon mchog rin chen (20th c.). Bod kyi gso rig dar tshul rgyas bsdus ‘tsham par bkod pa baidūrya’i phreng ba. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang. 1992, 1994. pp. 2, 320. History of medicine.
Bkra shis, Gser khang (20th c.). Bdud rtsi sman gyi rnam bshad blo gsar dga’ ston. Kan su’u Mi rigs Dpe skrun Khang, Lan kru’u. 1997. pp. 3, 7, 328.
Skal bzang ‘phrin las (1962-). Bod kyi gso ba rig pa’i byung ‘phel gyi lo rgyus gsal bar ston pa baidūrya sngon pi’i zhun thigs. Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. 1997. pp. 11, 481. English title on p. 4: Origin and Development of Tibetan Medicine.
Skal bzang legs bshad (20th c.?). Rgyal kun gsang ba’i mnga’ bdag rje btsun byams pa mthu stobs kun dga’ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar nor bu’i ‘khri shing. Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, Beijing. 1994. Biography of Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po.
Khro ru tshe rnam (20th c.). Gso rig rgyu bzhi’i ‘grel chen drang srong zhal lung. Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Khreng tu’u. 2001. vv. 6. The fifth volume is a volume of illustrations. The sixth volume has a separate title: Gso rig rgyu bzhi’i ‘grel chen gyi cha lag sman sbyor lag len nyer mkho phygs bsgrigs. Troru Tsenam is perhaps the most famous living Tibetan physician. Born in 1928, he is known for his skillful diagnoses and learning in traditional medical science. The publication of his great commentary on the Four Medical Tantras. These six volumes are in reality an encyclopedia of Tibetan medical lore.
Ngag dbang rgya mtsho, et. al. (20th c.) Mo nad gso ba, byis pa gso ba, gdon nad gso ba. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 1987. See TBRC O35.
‘Jigs bral ye shes rdo rje, Bdud ‘joms (1904-?). Dam rdzas bdud rtsi chos sman gi phab rgyun dkar chag dang phan yon mdor bdus dad pa’i shing rta. ‘Tsho byed tshe dpal, Delhi. 1980. pp. 36. Medicine and magic, spagiric, formulae.
Nyi zla he ruka, Lce nag tshang (1971-). Nyi zla’i gso rig ched rtsom gces btus. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 1999. pp. 2, 239. Essays on prognosis and treatment.
Bdud mgon tshe ring (20th c.?). Lus bsrung rdo rje pha lam. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Lan kru’u. 1997. pp. 2, 3, 163. Study of medicine.
_____. Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud kyi don thams cad phyogs gcig tu bsdus pa. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Lanzhou. 1997. pp. 6, 3, 191. Commentary on Rtsa rgyud.
Dpal chen (20th c?). Phyi rgyud rtsa chu’i mdo ‘grel yang gsal sgron me. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Lanzhou. pp. 4, 115. Commentary on Phyi ma rgyud, pulse and urine examination.
Dpal ldan ‘phrin las (20th c.). Bod lugs gso rig gi rgyun mthon mo nad ‘gog bcos bya thabs. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lha sa. 1996. pp. 85. Gynecology.
Dpal bzang rgya mtsho (20th c.). Lag len bdud rtsi’i zegs ma: Bod lugs sman rdzas lag len byed tshul bdud rtsi’i zegs ma. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. 1996. pp. 1, 7, 158. Preparation of drugs.
Byams pa ‘phrin las (1928-). Krung go’i bod kyi gso ba rig pa. Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. 1996. pp. 2, 311. Historical and general works. Chinese translation: Zhongguo di Zang yi. Zhongguo Zang xue chu ban she, Beijing. 1996. pp. 3, 162.
_____. Gangs ljongs gso rig bstan pa’i nyin byed rim byon gyi rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Pe cin.1990.
_____. Gangs ljongs gso rig bstan pa’i nyin byed rim byon gyi rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. 2000. pp. 7, 630, 16 p. ill. Revised edition.
_____. Byams pa ‘phrin las kyi gsung rtsom phyogs bsgrigs. Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, Beijing. 1996. pp. 4, 3, 599. Collected essays primarily on medical history.
Bla ma skyabs (20th c.). Bod kyi mkhas pa rim byon gyi gso rig gsung ‘bum dkar chag mu tig phreng ba. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Lan kru’u. 1997. pp. 284. A catalogue of medical authors and their works, arranged alphabetically by author. Contains entries for ? authors.
Mig dmar dbang ‘dus (20th c.). Lus khams ‘phrod bsten gyi shes bya’i dri ba dris lan. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. 1997.
Tshul khrims rgya mtsho (20th c.). Rgyun mthong nad rigs gso thabs bdud rtsi’i gzegs ma. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Lan kru’u. 1995. pp. 3, 256.
Tshe ring bkra shis (1951-). Bod kyi gso rig las rgyun mthong nad kyi rtags dang bcos thabs bshad pa blo gsar dgyes pa’i dga’ ston. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Lan kru’u. 1999. pp. 2, 174.
Tshe ring thag gcod (1969-). Bod lugs sman rtsis kyi tshig mdzod bod dbyin shan sbyar: Tibetan-English Dictionary of Tibetan Medicine and Astrology. Drungtso Publisher, Dharamsala. 1999. pp. 13, 339.
Tshe ring nor bu (1966-). Sman ming tshig mdzod blo gsar sgo ‘byed lde mig. Bod gzhun sman rtsis khang, Dharamsala. 1998. pp. 4, 265.
Tsarong, Tsewang Jigme (20th c.?). Handbook of Traditional Tibetan Drugs: Their Nomenclature, Composition, Use, and Dosage. Tibetan Medical Publications, Kalimpong. pp. 14, 101.
Mdzod dge ‘Od zer (20th c.) Phyugs nad brtag bcos myong grub bdud rtsi’i bang mdzod. Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Khreng tu’u. 1996. pp. 4, 19, 282. Veterinary medicine.
‘O tshogs chen (1956-). Mtsho sngon bod lugs gso rig slob grwa chen mo’i rig gzhung dpyad rtsom phyogs bsgrigs. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 1998. pp. 2, 217.
Rin ‘chen rdo rje (1968-). Bod lugs gso rig gi nad thog sman pas x zer phreng las mgon pa’i nad gzhi ngos ‘dzin bya thabs. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. 1998. pp. 2, 6, 166. Diagnosis of diseases according to Tibetan medicine with the help of x-ray.
Bsam gtan (1939-). Grub pa lus / ‘phel ‘grib nad. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 1987. pp. 233. Anatomy and pathogenesis.
_____. Mi na bar yun ring du ‘tsho bar bya ba. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 1987. pp. 100. Hygiene.
_____. Gso byed thabs, cha byad dpyad. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 1987. pp. 3, 2, 129. Textbook (slob deb).
_____. Gso rig snying bsdus skya rengs gsar pa. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lha sa. 1997. pp. 6, 15, 378. 56 pgs. ill. Diagnosis of diseases. [fmg note: The contents of this text are described in Bolsokhoyeva, Introduction to the Studies of Tibetan Medical Sources (Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point, 1993), 39-41.
Bsam gtan rgya mtsho, Dmu dge (20th c.). Rje dmu dge bsam gtan rgya mtsho mi ‘jigs dbyangs can dga’ ba’i blo gros dpal bzang po’i gsung ‘bum. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. Bod kyi sman rig byung tshul mdor bsdus. v. 1, pp. 612-621.
_____. Sman pa’i rgyal po ‘tsho byed gzhon nu’i thun mong gi rnam par thar pa mdo tsam bshad pa. Rje dmu dge bsam gtan rgya mtsho mi ‘jigs dbyangs can dga’ ba’i blo gros dpal bzang po’i gsung ‘bum. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. volume 1, pp. 435-524.
Bsod nams don grub, Sman rams pa (20th c.?). Sman sbyor lag deb gyi gdams pa myong grub ma. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. pp. 6, 8, 276. Pharmaceutical chemistry.
Bsod nams tshe ring (20th c.) Ri mor bkod pa’i mi grangs skor gyi rmang gzhi shes bya. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 1992. pp. 2, 4, 114. Hygeine.
Bsod nams tshe ring, Dpa’ ris (1942-). Gso dpyad nyams myong ‘chi med bdud rtsi bcud len. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Xining. Study of common diseases and their remedies.
A bu dkar lo (1945-). Mgo log sman rtsis rig pa’i lo rgyus nor bu’i rlabs phrengs. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 2000. pp. 11, 638. History of medicine in Golok.
A mye Sngags rtsa; Byang tshul khrims (20th c.). Sman bcos lag len snying bcud dwangs ma. Yun nan mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Khun ming. 1991. pp. 171. Introduction to medicine. Chinese-Tibetan bilingual edition.
Anonymous (20th c.). Rgyun mkho’i bod sman gyi phan yon lag deb. Bod gzhun sman rtsis khang, Dharamsala. 1996. pp. 121. Remedies.
Anonymous (20th c.). Rgyun spyod bod sman lag deb. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lha sa. 1990. pp. 18, 90. Remedies.
Anonymous (20th c.). Bod kyi gso rig slob deb. Bod gzhung sman rtsis khang gso rig mtho slob sde tshan, Dharamsala. 1993. vv. 3.
Anonymous (20th c.?). Sman sbyor nus pa phyogs bsdus phan bde’i legs bshad. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lha sa. 199?. pp. 11, 94. Bod ljongs lha sa sman rtsis khang gi gso rig zhib ‘jug khang gis bsgrigs pa. Effectiveness of pills and drugs.
Anonymous (20th c.?). Sman sbyor gyi nus pa phyogs bsdus phan bde’i legs bshad. Bod gzhung sman rtsis khang, Dharamsala. 1995. pp. 32, 118.
Anthology (Date?). Collected Astrological and Prognosticatory Texts from Bhutan. Kunsang Topgyal, Thimphu. 1981. pp. 594. Pecha.
Anthology (Date?). Three Tibetan Medical Texts from the Libray of Ri-bo-che Rje-drung Rin-po-che of Padma-bkod. Tibetan Nyingmapa Monastery, Tezu. 1973. pp. 160.
Anthology (20th c.). Kan lho bod kyi sman rtsis ched rtsom phyogs bsgrigs. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Lan kro’u. 1993.
Anthology (20th c.). Krung go’i gso rig kun ‘dus las bod kyi gso ba rig pa. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lha sa. 1990-2000. vv. 2. pp. 554, 547. Editor: U yon lhan khang. Two volumes on Tibet from Chinese medical encyclopedia.
Anthology (20th c.). Khong nad. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 1987. pp. 3, 3, 238. Edited (rtsom sgrig) by Dbyig gnyen, Kar dbang, Bdud ‘du bkra shis. See TBRC O35.
Anthology (20th c.). Rgyal yongs bod lugs gso rig ‘bring rim slob grwa’i tshod blta’i slob deb. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 1987. vv. 5. See TBRC O35.
Anthology (Date?). Dngul chu btso bkru chen mo dang, Lcags khams thal bzo rin chen ril bu’i sbyor ba bcas kyi lag len nag ‘gro su bkod pa zla ba’i ‘od zer. Ka thog rgyud sde ba Tshe ring dbang rgyal gyis slob ston byas pa’i ma zin ltar Sde dge rdzong bod sman khang gis brtsams. Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Khreng tu’u. 1981. pp. 4, 115. Preparation of pills.
Anthology (20th c.). Ched rtsom gser gyi thang ma: Bod lugs gso rig. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. 2000. pp. 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 238. 99 lo’i rgyal yongs bod lugs gso rig gi rig gzhun bgro gleng tshogs ‘du’i ched rtsom gces btus. Collection of seminar papers presented at Rgyal Yongs bod lugs gso rig gi rig gzhung bgro leng tshogs ‘du held in 1999.
Anthology (20th c.?). Bod kyi sman rtsis ches rtsom phyogs bsdus. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lha sa. 1986. pp. 427. Collected essays on medicine and astrology.
Anthology (20th c.). Bod sman nad bcos nyams zhib kyi tshogs chen: bgro gleng, gsung bshad dang dpyad rtsom khag. Conference on Clinical Research in Tibetan Medicine: March 15-17, 1996: Panels Discussions, Lectures, and Papers. Documentation and Publication Dept., Men-tsee-khang. 1998. pp. 8, 310.
Anthology (Date?). Man ngag lhan thabs kyi lde mig: Explanation of Difficult Terms Occuring in the Sde-srid’s Man ngag lhan thabs. S. W. Tashigangpa, Leh. 1973. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod, v. 57.
Anthology (20th c.?). Sman rdzas gzhi rtsa’i shes bya dang rgyu bkol nub lugs sman rdzas. 1999. pp. 14, 175. Translated from Chinese.
Anthology (20th c.). Sman pa rkang rjen ma’i bod sman sbyor sde gsar bsgrigs. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lha sa. 1975. pp. 6, 30, 289.
Anthology (Date?). Rin gter sman yig gces btus. Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Khreng tu’u. 1997. pp. 11, 3, 4, 716. Padmasambhava, etc.
Anthology (20th c.). Lhan skyes rma dang mtshon rma, mgo dang dbang po’i nad. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi ling. 1987. pp. 3, 2, 74. Gdugs dkar dang Stobs rgyas kyis rtsom sgrig byas. See TBRC O35.
Anthology (16th-20th c.). Gso rig skor gyi rgyun mkho gal che ba bdams bsgrigs. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. 1988. pp. 423. Modern editions of nine popular works from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, based upon Sde dge and Sman rtsis khang blockprints. Contents: 1. ‘Tsho byed las dang po la nye bar mkho ba’i zin tig gces par btus pa bdud rtsi’i thigs pa, Yon tan rgya mtsho, pp. 1-105. 2. Zin tig mdzes rgyan bdud rtsi’i sman mdzod, O rgyan theg mchog, pp. 106-254. 3. Bdud rtsi snying po’i rgyud kyi ‘grel pa drang srong zhal lung las dum bu bzhi pa phyi ma rgyud kyi rtsa mdo chu mdo’i tī ka, ‘Ju Mi pham pa, pp. 255-303. 4. Lag len nyer mkh’i sman gyi sbyor dpe bdud rtsi’i bum bzang, Mkhyen rab nor bu, pp. 304-343. 5. Sman sbyor gyi nus pa phyogs bsdus phan bde’i legs bshad, Mkhyen rab nor bu, pp. 344-360. 6. Sman sbyor bdud rtsi’i thig le, ‘Ju Mi pham pa, pp. 361-384. 7. Gangs ljongs sman gyi grong khyer lcags ri bai dūrya gling gi sngo’i sman gyi ‘khrungs dpe bsdus pa ngo mtshar gser gyi lde mig. 8. Nad sman sprod pa’i nyams yig, Sde dge Bla sman Chos grags rgya mtsho, pp. 401-418. 9. Sman gy byin rlabs phud mchod nyung ngu, Mkhyen rab nor bu, pp. 419-423.
Anthology (20th c.). Gso rig snying bsdus skya rengs gsar pa. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lha sa. 1979. pp. 6, 21, 52, 692. Bod ljongs lha sa sman rtsis khang gso rig zhib ‘jug khang gis brtsams.
Anthology (20th c.). Gso rig snying bsdus skya rengs gsar pa. Bod ljongs sman rtsis khang gso rig zhib ‘jug khang gis brtsams. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lha sa. 1985. pp. 593. 2nd ed.
Anthology (20th c.?). Gso rig padma’i bcud bdus. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang. Lanzhou. 1982. pp. 122. Examing the causes of diseases and their treatment.
Anthology (16th-20th c.). Fundamentals of Tibetan Medical Practice: Lha-sa Sman-rtsis-khang Prints of Works by Mkhyen-rab-nor-bu, ‘Ju Mi-pham, Chos-grags-rgya-mtsho, and ‘Jam-mgon Kong-sprul. D. L. Tashigangpa, Leh. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod, v. 49.
Anthology (Date?). Minor Medical Texts from the Library of Rgya-ston Em-chi: A Collection of Twelve Medical Works by Various Tibetan Ayurvedic Doctors. Pema Lodoe, Bir. 1977. pp. 137.
Ngag dbang rig gnas rgya mtsho (Date?). Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud las dum bu dang po rtsa ba’i rgyud kyi rnam bshad zhal lung don gsal: A Detailed Commentary on the Rtsa rgyud, the First and Mūla Tantra of the Four Medical Tantras. T. Sonam Tashigang, Leh. 1977. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod v. 78. pp. 52. Manuscript.
Ngag dbang sangs rgyas dpal bzang (Date?). Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag yon tan rgyud kyi lhan thabs zug rnu’i tsha gdung sel ba’i… bdud rtsi’i gter bum mkha’ ‘gro’i gtad bya’u rgya ma mdud bkrol ba’i rin chen gser gyi lde mig. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Zi lin. 1993. pp. 114.
Phyag rdo mgon po, Zur ‘tsho ba (Date? Pre-18th c.). Man ngag gces bsdus rin chen ‘phreng ba: A Collection of Tibetan Ayurvedic Medicinal Preparations and Practices of the Gong-sman Tradition. T. Paljor Emchi, Leh. 1975. pp. 178.
_____. Man ngag gces bsdus rin chen ‘phreng ba: A Collection of Tibetan Ayurvedic Medicinal Preparations and Practices of the Gong-sman Tradition. T. Paljor Emchi, Leh. 1975. pp. 162.
Blo bzang snyan grags (20th c.?). Bshad rgyud kyi ‘grel pa blo gsal ngag gi sgron me. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. pp. 4, 472. Commentary on the Bshad rgyud.
Tshe don, Ban stag Sman pa (Date?). Gangs ljongs gso rig bstan pa’i dar rgud las ‘phros pa’i gtam yig kyi rol cha. Bod gzhung sman rtsis khang, Dharamsala. 1996. pp. 73. History of medicine.
Tshe dbang rdo rje, Sprul sku (Date?). Gso rig phan bde’i bdud rtsi le’u tshogs gces btus rin chen do śal: A Treatise on Various Tibetan Medical Preparations and their Uses. Damcho Sangpo, Dalhousie. 1984. pp. 270.
Ye shes bzang po, Gtsang sman (Date?). Zhal gdams man ngag gnad ‘gag do shal mdzes rgyan. Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Lanzhou. pp. 2, 114.
Rin chen ‘od zer, Sde dge Bla sman (Date?). Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud las rtsa rgyud dang bshad rgyud kyi ‘grel pa. Si khron dpe skrun khang. Khreng tu’u. 2001. Series: Bod kyi gso rig dpe rnying phyogs sgrigs gangs ri dkar po’i phreng ba 3.
Lung rigs bstan dar (Date?). Sman gyi rgyud bzhi’i brda don ‘ga’ zhig dkrol ba rnams rgyal a ru ra’i ‘phreng ba’i mdzes rgyan and Man ngag lhan thabs kyi dka’ gnas dkrol ba rnams rgyal gser mdog gyi ‘phreng ba: Explanations of Difficult Terms and Expressions in the Rgyud bzhi and Man ngag lhan thabs of Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas-rgya-mtsho. Ngawang Sopa, New Delhi. 1979. vv. 2. Mongolian print.
_____. Rgyud bzhi’i brda bkrol rnam rgyal a ru ra’i phreng ba’i mdzes rgyan. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Pe cin. 1986. pp. 7, 521. Terms in Rgyud bzhi.
O rgyan chos ‘phel (Date?). Man ngag yon tan rgyud kyi na lugs nad rtags gsal bar bkod pa’i a dar sha. Delhi [Di li]. 1973. pp. 336. Methods and diagnosis, by a Ladakhi physician.
Anonymous (Date? Pre-18th c). Drang srong gi nad ‘chos pa’i sman dpyad gso ba rig pa rin chen sna bdun: A Treatise on the Principles of Tibetan Medicine and Medical Treatment. Chhentse Labrang, Gangtok. 1980. pp. 592. Pecha.
Anonymous (Date?). Gso spyad sngo sbyor tshogs kyi man ngag rin chen ‘khrungs dpe bstan pa: A Tibetan Botanical Treatise on the Recognition of Medicinal Plants. T. S. Tashigangpa, Leh. 1974. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod v. 50. pp. 221. Other title: Sngo yi ‘khrungs dpe bstan pa. Incomplete ms from Khams.
Anonymous (Date?). Gso rig bdud rtsi’i bang mdzod ‘bum bzhi. Four Collections of Nectar Treasures of Medicines. Paljor Publications, New Delhi. 1999. vv. 2. Bonpo Kanjur.
Anonymous (20th c.) ‘Gro phan sman rtsis khang gi byung rabs brjod pa ka la ping ba’i gre ‘gyur. Bod gzhung sman rtsis khang, Dharamsala. 1996. pp. 163. History of the Sman rtsis khang in Lhasa, 1916-1995.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Optical Transmission and Reflection by Blood, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Vol. BME-17, Number 2, April 1970 pp. 122-128.
Quantitative Assessment of Compressed Colour Images Manisha Jadhav, Yogesh Dandawate, Narayan PisharotyInternational Conference on Recernt Technology, I-CORT, 2012. 9- 12 February 2012.
Vikram Singh, R Karthik, Prem Kumar, “Study of Bias-Temperature Instability in HfO2 sputtered Thin Films by Post Nitrogen Annealing for the Advanced CMOS Technology” bearing paper ID-Amm-504 is accepted to present in “International Conference on Advancements in Materials for Manufacturing (ICAAMM-2016) at MLR- Institute of Technology, Hyderabad during 7 to 9th July 2016.This paper will be published in “Elsevier Materials Today Procedia” and will be available in www.sciencedirect.com, 2016.
Vikram Singh, V. S. V. Satynarayana, Satinder K. Sharma, Subrata Ghosh, Kenneth E. Gonsalves, “Novel non-Chemical Amplified (n-CARs) Negative Resists for EUVL”, Proc. SPIE. 9051, Advances in Patterning Materials and Processes XXXI, 905106. (March 27, 2014). DOI: 10.1117/12.2041183.
Vikram Singh, Vishwanath Kalyani, V. S. V. Satynarayana, Pradeep Parameswaran, Satinder K. Sharma, Subrata Ghosh, Kenneth E. Gonsalves, “Organic-Inorganic Hybrid Resists for EUVL”, Proc. SPIE. 9051, Advances in Patterning Materials and Processes XXXI, 90511W. (March 27, 2014) DOI: 10.1117/12.2041907.
V. S. V. Satynarayana,Vikram Singh, Vishwanath Kalyani, Pradeep Parameswaran, Satinder K. Sharma, Subrata Ghosh, Kenneth E. Gonsalves, “Design and synthesis of novel resist materials for EUVL”, Proc. SPIE 9048, Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) Lithography V, 90481W (April 17, 2014); DOI:10.1117/12.2045736; http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.2045736.
Vikram Singh, Vishwanath Kalyani, V. S. V. Satynarayana, Pradeep Parameswaran, Satinder K. Sharma, Subrata Ghosh, Kenneth E. Gonsalves, “Optimization of processing parameters and metrology for novel NCA negative resist for NGL”,Proc. SPIE. 9048, Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) Lithography V, 90481Y. (April 17, 2014) DOI: 10.1117/12.2045882.
N. Shashank, Vikram Singh, Vibhor Kumar, H.S. Jayanna, K.M. Balakrishna and R. Damle “ 60Gamma Ray Induced Total Dose Effects in p-Channel MOSFET devices” Indian Journal of Materials Science, Hindawi Publishing Corporation (Accepted) 2013 http://dx.DOI.org/10.1155/2013/465905.
Singh, Vikram, Dinesh Kumar, and R. K. Nahar. "Radiation Reliability of HfO2 High-k Gate Dielectric Thin Films." Radiation Synthesis of Materials and Compounds. Eds. Boris I. Kharisov, Oxana V. Kharissova, and Ubaldo Ortiz Méndez. CRC Press, 2013. 193-219.
Vikram Singh, R Karthik, Prem Kumar, “Study of Bias-Temperature Instability in HfO2 sputtered Thin Films by Post Nitrogen Annealing for the Advanced CMOS Technology” bearing paper ID-Amm-504 is accepted to present in “International Conference on Advancements in Materials for Manufacturing (ICAAMM-2016) at MLR- Institute of Technology, Hyderabad during 7 to 9th July 2016.
Prem Kumar Hawal, Vikram Singh, V. S. V. Satyanarayana Fabrication and Characterization of Nano Particle Embedded MIS-Capacitor for Future Memory Applications. in 2nd National Symposium on Interdisciplinary Sciences on 27th  28th February, 2015 at Government Gandhi Memorial Science College, Jammu (J & K), India.
Guilherme Kretzmann Belmonte, Gabriela Ramos Chagas, Felipe Kessler, Francine Ramos Scheffer, Vikram Singh, V S.V Satyanarayana, Kenneth Gonsalves, Daniel Eduardo Weibel “Extreme Ultraviolet Fragmentation Studies of Radiation-Sensitive Novel Polymeric Resist Materials” XIV SLAP/XII CIP 2014, October 12-16th, 2014, Porto de Galinhas, Brazi, Latin American Congress on Polymers, in the area of Polymers Modification, Degradation, Stabilization and Additives, pl-4.
Vikram Singh, V. S. V. Satyanarayana, Yogesh K. Saini , Naveen Naraneeya, Satinder K. Sharma, Subrata Ghosh, and Kenneth E. Gonsalves,, “Novel non-Chemically Amplified (n-CARs) Negative Resists for sub 15 nm Lithography Technology”, International workshop IECRAIETS-2014 on 26 & 27th Sept. 2014 at IIT Mandi.
V. S. V. Satynarayana,Vikram Singh, Subrata Ghosh, Satinder K. Sharma, Kenneth E. Gonsalves, “Strategies for enhancing the sensitivity of novel NCA negative tone resists for EUVL”, International workshop IECRAIETS-2014 on 26 & 27th Sept. 2014 at IIT Mandi.
Vishwanath Kalyani, V. S. V. Satyanarayana, Vikram Singh, Chullikkattil P. Pradeep, Subrata Ghosh, Satinder Sharma, Kenneth E. Gonsalves, “Polyoxometalates (POMs) based Hybrid Materials: Towards Advanced Applications in Materials Science”, International workshop IECRAIETS-2014 on 26 & 27th Sept. 2014 at IIT Mandi.
Vikram Singh, V. S. V. Satynarayana, Satinder K. Sharma, Subrata Ghosh, Kenneth E. Gonsalves, “Novel non-Chemical Amplified (n-CARs) Negative Resists for EUVL”, Proc. SPIE. 9051, Advances in Patterning Materials and Processes XXXI, 905106. (March 27, 2014) doi: 10.1117/12.2041183.
Ritu Bhoria, Manoj Ahlawat, Wazir Singh, Prem Kumar Hawal  Design of Low Power Dynamic Latch Comparator for Biomedical applications  International Conference on "VLSI, Communication & Network (VCAN-2015)" on 18th  19th April-2015 at Department of Electronics Communication & Engineering, IET Alwar (Rajasthan) India. Page Number: 51.
Prem Kumar Hawal , Saurabh Kumar Khandelwal , Arif Ali Wani , Vaibhav Raniwal , Nirmal Khare Application of innovative high-tech sensors for modern Terrorist-proof buildings Presented in All India Seminar held under aegis of Civil Engineering Division Board of the Institution of Engineers (India)  by Alwar local Centre of IEI on 07th  08th February, 2015, at SunRise University Alwar (Raj) India, 301030.
Saurabh Kumar Khandelwal, Prem Kumar Hawal, Nitish Kumar Boyal Computationally Efficient MED Based Switched Predictor for Lossless Compression of 4-D Medical Data National Conference on Current Research in Emerging Trends of Management, Arts, Science, and Technology (CRETMAST2K14) on dated 1st - 2nd November, 2014 at SunRise University Alwar (Raj) India.
Hari Bhushan Prasad, Ashok Singh Sunhal, Dr. Ekta Joshi, Sandeep Kumar, Prem Kumar Hawal, “Optical Properties of Thin films and nanostructures of Gold Nanoparticles”, International Workshop :IECRAIETS  2014 organised in collaboration TU9 Germany and IIT Mandi, at IIT - Mandi, (H.P) India, Dated 26th and 27th Sept. 2014.
Bhoop Singh, Prem Kumar and Sandeep kumar, Embedded System for real time applications in Military and Aerospace  International Conference on Computer Applications in Manufacturing and Food Technologies and Bio-Nano Engineering (CAMBTE-2014) on February 21st -22nd , 2014 at Universal Institute of Technology, Hansi, Hisar (Haryana) India. Page Number: 76.
Bhoop Singh, Prem Kumar and Dr. Sandeep Arya A sub-threshold Operation Based Low Power CMOS Voltage Reference International Conference on Innovative Technology (ICIT  09) at PDM College of Engg. 18-19 June 2009.
Electronics and Communication Engg dept.
A. K. Singh Rathore and A. R. Harish, "A novel printed dual mode resonator filter based on radial stub," IEEE MTT-S International Microwave and RF Conference , New Delhi, 2013, pp. 1-4.
Design and integration of Carbon nanotube/ ultra low-k materials for next generation integrated circuits. (Submitted at DST under Nano-Mission, Status: under review) Duration – 2 years, cost-40.40 Lakhs.
Design and Integration of Non-Plasmonic Nano Antenna for Information Processing, Bio-Detection and nonlinear spectroscopy Applications. (Abstract accepted by DST under Nano-Mission ) Duration:-3years, cost-50 Lakhs.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


Termination For Convenience Of Far Part 12 Commercial Item Contracts: Is Fair Compensation Required? - Seidman & Associates, P.C.
Termination For Convenience Of Far Part 12 Commercial Item Contracts: Is Fair Compensation Required?
(l) Termination for the Government’s convenience. The Government reserves the right to terminate this contract, or any part hereof, for its sole convenience. In the event of such termination, the Contractor shall immediately stop all work hereunder and shall immediately cause any and all of its suppliers and subcontractors to cease work. Subject to the terms of this contract, the Contractor shall be paid a percentage of the contract price reflecting the percentage of the work performed prior to the notice of termination, plus reasonable charges the Contractor can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Government using its standard record keeping system, have resulted from the termination. The Contractor shall not be required to comply with the cost accounting standards or contract cost principles for this purpose. This paragraph does not give the Government any right to audit the Contractor’s records. The Contractor shall not be paid for any work performed or costs incurred which reasonably could have been avoided.
Following the enactment of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003, an Alternate I to the FAR 52.212-4, paragraph (l) clause was promulgated for use in time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts. Alternate I replaces “a percentage of the contract price reflecting the percentage of the work performed prior to the notice of termination” with “an amount for direct labor hours . . . determined by multiplying the number of direct labor hours expended before the effective date of termination by the hourly rate(s) in the contract, less any hourly rate payments already made to the Contractor.” It retains the second prong of the formula for reasonable charges resulting from the termination.
The measure of recovery in the second prong is stated slightly differently in FAR 12.403(d). The FAR 52.212-4 clause requires that a contractor demonstrate charges resulted from the termination “to the satisfaction of the Government.” FAR 12.403(d) does not require that proof be to the Government’s satisfaction. FAR 12.403(d)(1)(ii) requires proof that costs “directly” resulted from the termination. The FAR 52.212-4, paragraph (l) merely requires proof that charges resulted from the termination.
[T]he paragraphs in 52.212-4 entitled “Termination for the Government’s Convenience” and “Termination for Cause” contain concepts which differ from those contained in the termination clauses prescribed in part 49. Consequently, the requirements of part 49 do not apply when terminating contracts for commercial items and contracting officers shall follow the procedures in this section. Contracting officers may continue to use part 49 as guidance to the extent that part 49 does not conflict with this section and the language of the termination paragraphs in 52.212-4.
(1) Allowable costs incurred in the performance of the work.
(2) Costs allowable under a special termination Cost Principle set forth at FAR 31.205-42. Such costs include unamortized costs incurred prior to the termination, costs continuing after the termination, and settlement expense.
(3) A reasonable profit on the above costs with the exception of settlement expense.
See, e.g., FAR 52.249-2, paragraphs (f), (g), (i); see also FAR 49.113, 49.201, 49.202, 31.205-42. See generally Seidman & Seidman, Maximizing Termination for Convenience Settlements/Edition II–Part I, Briefing Papers No. 08-3 (Feb. 2008); Seidman & Seidman, Maximizing Termination for Convenience Settlements/Edition II–Part II, Briefing Papers No. 08-5 (Apr. 2008).
(a) “Costs continuing after termination” that cannot be avoided are generally allowable. Unavoidable “[i]dle facilities and idle capacity” and certain unavoidable severance payments are examples of recoverable costs continuing after termination.
(b) “Initial costs” not fully absorbed because of a termination are allowable. One example is “starting load costs” such as learning curve costs and training. Another is “preparatory costs” such as initial plant rearrangement and production planning.
(c) “Loss of useful value” of special tooling and special machinery and equipment is generally allowable to the extent it resulted from the termination.
(d) “Rental costs under unexpired leases” are allowable for a reasonable period, to the extent they cannot be avoided, if necessary for the performance of the terminated contract.
(e) The costs of “alterations of leased property” are allowable when the alterations were necessary for performing the contract.
(f) “Subcontractor claims” are generally allowable. An appropriate share of the contractor’s indirect expense may be allocated to the amount of settlements with subcontractors.
(g) “Settlement expenses” for preparation and presentation of a termination settlement proposal and the administration of subcontract terminations are generally allowable. These expenses include the cost of in-house personnel and outside experts such as attorneys and accountants.
FAR 49.202 entitles a contractor to a reasonable profit on its termination costs other than settlement expense. Recovery of allowable costs incurred and profit under a fixed-price contract is limited to the “total contract price.” See FAR 52.249-2, paragraph (f) and FAR 49.207. “Total contract price” includes any equitable adjustments to which a contractor is entitled. See FAR 52.243-1 (“Changes–Fixed-Price” clause), 52.243-2 (“Changes–Cost-Reimbursement” clause); see alsoAgrinautics, ASBCA 21512, 79-2 BCA ¶ 14149, 22 GC ¶ 200.
If the Government can prove that the contract would have been completed at a loss, the contractor is not entitled to profit and recovery is subject to a loss adjustment, FAR 49.203(a) and FAR 52.249-2, paragraph (f). A loss adjustment reduces the contractor’s termination costs, other than settlement expenses, by the percentage of loss that would have been incurred had the contract been completed, FAR 49.203(b), (c).
A contractor’s recovery for the termination for convenience of a FAR Part 12 contract for commercial items is the sum of (1) the percentage of the contract price reflecting the percentage of the work performed prior to the notice of the termination and (2) any charges the contractor can demonstrate resulted directly from the termination, FAR 12.403(d); FAR 52.212-4, paragraph (l). This is a modified price-based formulasince the first element is price based and the second element is cost based. It is a departure from the cost-based formula for traditional Government contracts discussed above. See Briefing Papers Nos. 08-3 and 8-05.
(1) Percentage of physical completion at termination multiplied by total contract price.
(2) Payment of the contract price for completed units of work at termination.
(3) Percentage of effort expended up to the time of termination multiplied by contract price.
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals and the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals recently held that percentage of completion means percentage of physical completion rather than the percentage of effort expended, Red River Holdings, LLC, ASBCA 56316, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34304, and Corners & Edges, Inc. v. Department of Health & Human Services, CBCA 762 et al., 08-2 BCA ¶ 33961.
Appellant has not argued that it failed to receive 57/59 of the contract price. Appellant argues that it obtained the $17,329,000 loan in order to acquire and outfit the [vessel] for the contract, it fully completed acquisition and outfitting at the outset of the contract long before its termination and so it is entitled to the remaining loan principal and interest it paid after such termination under the “percentage of the work performed” provision of the termination clause.
In Red River and Corners & Edges, the amount paid for completed work at the contract price is the same as the percentage of physical completion times the total contract price. This will not be the case if each line item in a contract is not priced in proportion to its contribution to physical completion or if some line items are partially completed. In such cases, the FAR 52.212-4, paragraph (l) clause appears to mandate that the contractor be paid the percentage of physical completion times the total contract price rather than the contract price for the completed line items. The percentage of the contract price reflecting the percentage of completion could be less than that due the contractor for the completed work at line item prices. Yet it would not make sense to permit the Government to pay less than the amount due under the payments clause for work performed by terminating a contract for convenience.
Neither Red River nor Corners & Edges concerned a time-and-materials or labor-hour contract. Nevertheless, as previously discussed, the “percentage of physical completion multiplied by contract price” approach to recovery adopted in these cases is consistent with the FAR 52.212-4, Alternate I provisions for time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts.
• What are reasonable charges resulting directly from the termination?–The commercial item contract formula requires that a terminated contractor be paid reasonable charges resulting from the termination. Because contract terminations “generally give rise to the incurrence of costs or the need for special treatment of costs that would not have arisen had the contract not been terminated,” FAR 31.205-42 sets forth a “Termination costs” Cost Principle for traditional Government contracts. As previously noted, this Cost Principle for traditional Government contracts permits a terminated contractor to recover unamortized performance costs and certain costs continuing after termination. Do reasonable charges resulting from the termination mean the same thing?
The commercial items clause speaks of reasonable charges resulting from the termination rather than reasonable costs resulting from the termination. Unamortized performance costs are not the result of a termination. They are sunk costs incurred prior to the termination. However, it is reasonable to charge for costs that are unamortized as the result of a termination. This is evident from the allowability of such costs under FAR 31.205-42 in traditional Government contracts because contract terminations “generally give rise to . . . the need for special treatment of costs that would not have arisen had the contract not been terminated.” Similarly unavoidable costs continuing after a termination are not the result of a termination because they would have been incurred whether or not the contract was terminated. However as recognized in FAR 31.205-42, it is reasonable to charge for such costs to make a contractor whole after a contract has been terminated for convenience.
The contracting officer’s generalized statement in her decision on appellant’s termination claim that “under a services contract, the Government is only liable for services rendered before the date of termination” paints with too broad a brush. Under the Termination for Convenience clause of this contract, appellant was also entitled to reasonable charges that a contractor could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Government resulted from the termination. Boards have recognized a terminated contractor’s entitlement to reimbursement for those charges under service contracts containing a similar clause. Divecon Services, L.P. v. Department of Commerce, GSBCA 15997-COM, et. al, 04-2 BCA 32,656, at 161,636-67; Jon Winter & Associates, AGBCA 2005-129-2, 2005 WL 1423636 (June 20, 2005). However, in this case, since the Government supplied all materials and supplies for the performance of this contract, appellant has not demonstrated that such charges exist.
[T]he contracting officer incorrectly interprets the “reasonable charges” portion of the clause. The language of the clause does not state that charges resulting from the termination must have been incurred subsequent to the termination for convenience; the clause does not expressly limit the additional relief to settlement expenses. The clause permits payment of reasonable charges that have resulted from the termination. A contractor may have reasonably incurred costs in anticipation of performing the entire contract, but those costs may not be fully reflected as a percentage of the work performed.
Under the approach taken by the ASBCA in Red River, costs continuing after termination that would be allowable under the FAR 31.205-42 Cost Principle for traditional Government contracts are not allowable under the commercial items clause because they are sunk costs that would have been incurred irrespective of the termination. The only post-termination cost that appears to be allowable under Red River is settlement expense.
Red River appears to confuse reasonable “charges” resulting from a termination with reasonable costs resulting from a termination. The significance of the use of the term “charges” in the clause instead of costs is evident from the regulatory history of the rule. Under the proposed rule “actual direct costs” resulting from the termination were allowable, 60 Fed. Reg. 11198, 11216 (Mar. 1, 1995). Under the final rule, “reasonable charges” resulting from the termination are allowable, 60 Fed. Reg. 48231, 48254 (Sept. 18, 1995).
Unamortized performance costs are not reasonable costs resulting from the termination. However, it is reasonable to charge for performance costs that are unamortized as the result of a termination. This is evident from the allowability of such costs under the FAR 31.205-42 Cost Principle for traditional Government contracts because contract terminations “generally give rise to the . . . the need for special treatment of costs that would not have arisen had the contract not been terminated.” Similarly unavoidable costs continuing after a termination would have been incurred anyway and therefore are not incurred as the result of a termination. However, as recognized in FAR 31.205-42, it is reasonable to charge for such costs to make a contractor whole after a contract has been terminated for convenience.
Recovery for the termination of a commercial item contract may be a rough equivalent of recovery for the termination of a traditional Government contract.
First, the cost-based formula for a traditional Government contract provides for a downward loss adjustment if a contract would be completed at a loss. Prong 1 of the commercial item formula, which provides for recovery of the percentage of contract price reflecting the percentage of completion, results in a similar downward adjustment if a contract is being performed at a loss.
Second, FAR 31.205-42 provides for the recovery of unamortized performance costs and costs unavoidably continuing after termination in a traditional Government contract. In Corners & Edges, the CBCA held that prong 2 of the commercial item formula for reasonable charges resulting from a termination includes unamortized performance costs. Based on the rationale in that case, the formula also appears to include costs unavoidably continuing after termination. As previously noted, this approach was rejected by the ASBCA in Red River, which the author believes to be wrongly decided.
If anything, the commercial item standard of reasonable charges resulting from a termination may be broader than the particular continuing costs allowable under the FAR 31.205-42 Cost Principle for traditional Government contracts. FAR 31.205-42 provides for the recovery of particular costs resulting from a termination, while the commercial items provision allows the recovery of all reasonable charges resulting from the termination. Also, as previously noted, Government contract Cost Principles that provide a basis for denying costs are inapplicable to commercial item contract terminations.
In Corners & Edges, the CBCA stated that “lost profits and consequential damages are not available under the [commercial item contract] Termination for Convenience clause,” citing International Data Products Corp. v. U.S., 492 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cl. 2007), and Praecom v. U.S., 78 Fed. Cl. 5 (Fed. Cl. 2007). The board’s reference to International Data Products is questionable because that case did not concern the termination for convenience of a contract with the commercial items clause. The board’s reliance on Praecom is also questionable. Although Praecom concerned a contract with the commercial items termination for convenience clause, the Court of Federal Claims cited International Data Products for the principle that lost profits are not recoverable without considering the differences in the clauses.
It also appears reasonable to charge the cost of overturning a legally insupportable termination for cause in litigation. In traditional Government contracts, such costs are unallowable under the FAR 31.205-47 “Costs related to legal and other proceedings” Cost Principle. The proceedings Cost Principle is not grounds for disallowing costs claimed by a terminated commercial items contractor. As previously noted, commercial item contract terminations are not subject to Cost Principles.
It does not appear that the Federal Circuit will resolve the conflict between the ASBCA decision in Red River and the CBCA decision in Corners & Edges in the near future. Red River appealed the ASBCA decision first to the Federal Circuit (No. 2010-1073) and subsequently to the U.S. District Court for Maryland (Civil Action No. 10-0534). On May 4, 2010, the Federal Circuit transferred its case to the district court because it concerns a maritime contract. (The Contract Disputes Act, 41 USCA § 603, defers to federal maritime statutes on suits from boards of contract appeals concerning maritime contracts.) Where does that leave a commercial item contractor dissatisfied with the amount a Contracting Officer is willing to pay as the result of a termination for convenience?
A contractor can elect to challenge a final decision denying its claim in either the cognizant board of contract appeals or the Court of Federal Claims. A terminated defense contractor that seeks to recover unamortized performance costs or unavoidable continuing costs should avoid the Red River precedent by bringing suit in the Court of Federal Claims instead of the ASBCA. If the terminated contract is with a civilian agency, the contractor may want to bring suit at the CBCA based on its favorable decision in Corners & Edges. The Court of Federal Claims has not ruled on this issue and it possibly could follow Red River. This choice of forum recommendation is premised upon the current state of the law. A contractor should check recent decisions and regulatory changes before submitting an appeal to determine if this is still a good recommendation.
Also, terminations for convenience often follow Government-caused delays. Such delays may result from a stop work order. They also could result from the Government’s failure or inability to take an action required for contractor performance, such as making a worksite available. This results in unamortized performance costs a defense contractor could not recover under Red River. Nevertheless, a contractor may be entitled to an equitable adjustment for such costs under the “Changes” and “Disputes” clauses. See SAWADI Corp, ASBCA 53073, 01-1 BCA ¶ 31357; Commercial Item Disputes: Using New Contract Language, 17 N&CR ¶ 2.
Thus, to allow such costs as preparatory and insurance costs–which might be allowable in terminated non-commercial, fixed-price contracts, see FAR 31.205-42(b), (c)(2)–in this commercial item contract would conflict with FAR 12.403(a) and 52.212-4(l). Moreover, the cases and regulations which appellant cites to support recovery of such items as preparatory and insurance costs apply in the context of recognizing or determining termination costs of non-commercial item contracts under FAR 52.249-2 and its predecessor regulations.
The FAR 49.201 and 49.113 fair compensation principles also do not appear in the FAR provisions for cost-reimbursement contracts. Nevertheless, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied the “fair compensation” principle to a cost-reimbursement contract in Jacobs Engineering Group v. U.S., 434 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006), 48 GC ¶ 49. See also Termination of Cost-Reimbursement Contracts: A Novel Interpretation of the Termination Clause, 20 N&CR ¶ 17.


text:
DIALYSIS CLINIC, INC. ET AL. v. KEVIN MEDLEY ET AL.
BOBBY BAILEY JR. ET AL. v. U.S.F. HOLLAND, INC ET AL.
CHARLES STINSON ET AL. v. DAVID E. MENSEL ET AL.
STAINMASTER CARPET & RESTORATION, LLC ET AL. v. MUSIC CITY MESSENGER SERVICE, INC. ET AL.
AMY ANGELL TUCKER ET AL. v. SANDRA JACKSON IVESON ET AL.
KINGSTON SPRINGS MEDICAL, LLC v. KARL FRANCIS, ET AL.
Steven H. Parker v. Brunswick Forest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Jack R. Owen Revocable Trust v. City of Germantown, Tennessee, et al.
Washington County Education Association Et Al. v. Washington County Board Of Education Et Al.
Estate Of Herbert Ross Shelton v. Greeneville Urgent Care And Occupational Medicine Clinic, Et Al.
Anderson County Tennessee Et Al. v. Tennessee State Board Of Equalization Et Al.
Jed Emert v. Millennium Taxi Service, LLC Et Al.
River Plantation Homeowner's Association Inc. v. R. Randall Capps Et Al.
Shaleen Fowler Et Al. v. Morristown-Hamblen Hospital Association Et Al.
John Thomas Ammons v. William C. Longworth Et Al.
Scott Trent Et Al. v. Mountain Commerce Bank Et Al.
Mary Ann Sklar v. Patrick Clancy, Et Al.
Eric S. Lovett Et Al. v. Marshall Steven Cole, Jr. Et Al.
Ralph Salas Et Al. v. Marshall Steven Cole Jr.
Deborah L. Bain v. UTI Integrated Logistics, LLC, et al.
Chistopher Alexander v. Kellogg USA, Inc.
Carol Nolan v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, et al.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Before: FLETCHER and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,** Senior District Judge.
Arctic Ice Cream Novelties ("Arctic") and William Dinsmore ("Dinsmore") appeal from the district court's summary judgment rejecting their challenge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's ("INS") denial of their application for an employment-based preference visa for Dinsmore under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b) (2) (A) and 1153(b) (2) (B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Arctic contends that the INS erred in two respects: first, in ruling that Dinsmore does not qualify as an alien of exceptional ability, and, second, in failing to find that his employment would be in the national interest. We review a summary judgment de novo using the same standard as the district court which, in the case of a denial of an immigrant visa, is for abuse of discretion. § U.S.C. § 706(2) (A); Asuncion v. District Dir., INS, 427 F.2d 523, 524 (9th Cir. 1970).
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k) (3) (ii). If the preceding categories "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k) (3) (iii).
Salary. The INS found that Dinsmore's salary of $75,000 a year accompanied by a 20 percent stock option (unvalued) spread over four years has not been shown to be an above average salary for a managing director and thus does not "demonstrate [ ] exceptional ability in business," as required by subpart D. Arctic conceded in the district court that "reasonable minds might differ" on whether its compensation evidence establishes exceptional ability, an admission that is fatal on abuse of discretion review. Arctic's conclusory assertion that Dinsmore's salary "meets the INS's criteria of commanding a salary demonstrating exceptional ability" does not explain why the INS's finding was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.
Membership in Professional Organizations. Arctic submitted evidence that Dinsmore was a member and officer of a number of dairy industry associations. It concedes that none is a "professional association" but argues that the dairy industry does not have any professional organizations. The INS concluded the evidence did not satisfy subpart E or section 204.5(k) (3) (iii) as comparable evidence because "the record does not include evidence of membership requirements or other information which would lead to the conclusion that these associations require of their members a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily required." The INS's construction of its own regulations is entitled to substantial deference. Lyng v. Payne, 476 U.S. 926, 939 (1986). It cannot be said that the INS erred in interpreting subpart E to refer to organizations that require their members to have above-average expertise in their field.
Recognition for Achievements and Significant Contributions. The INS determined that the letters submitted by Arctic from Dinsmore's colleagues, various governmental officials, and a U.S. senator do not satisfy the requirements of subpart F because "the letters do not give a detailed description of [Dinsmore's] accomplishments and significant contributions." Arctic does not directly contest this determination on appeal. Moreover we cannot say that the INS was unreasonable in interpreting the term "recognition" in its regulations as referring to specific accomplishments and contributions, rather than general success. While most of the letters contained glowing reviews of Dinsmore, none spoke in specific terms of his contributions or achievements.
Comparable Evidence. Arctic contends that because business success cannot be measured in terms of academic degrees or licenses, this is a case in which comparable factors must be considered. It has not shown, however, that the criteria applied to Dinsmore under the INS regulations--salary, membership in professional organizations, and recognition for achievements--are not relevant to the determination of whether he qualifies as an alien of exceptional ability.
In sum, the INS did not abuse its discretion in finding that Dinsmore did not qualify as an alien of exceptional ability.
The INS interpreted "national interest" in section 1153(b) (2) (B), authorizing waiver of the job offer requirement, as requiring "a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the 'prospective national benefit' required of all aliens seeking to qualify as 'exceptional.' " It found that the "evidence submitted does not establish [Dinsmore as] having more than an extremely limited effect on the economy or welfare of the United States."
Arctic argues that the INS's narrow interpretation of national interest is contrary to the intent of Congress and ignores evidence that Dinsmore's employment would create jobs and improve working conditions and would make as great a contribution as that of immigrants admitted under other provisions of the law. Because "national interest" is a general term of no precise meaning and Congress has expressed no specific intent with respect to its meaning, we must defer to the INS's interpretation so long as it is not arbitrary or capricious. See Chevron USA, Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 & n. 9 (1994). We cannot say that it is.
Arctic also argues that in prior decisions, the INS has articulated relevant factors similar to those on which Arctic relies here. But the fact that the INS has relied on similar factors does not establish that it has applied them in an inconsistent manner. The INS's decision turns on the sufficiency of the evidence and in this case it found that the evidence was insufficient to show that Dinsmore's employment would have anything more than an "extremely limited effect." Nothing in the record would support a conclusion that the INS abused its discretion.


Zoning and Land Use Planning Law: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Local Government Control O - Farrell Fritz, P.C.
For reasons that it never made clear, the town board did not officially consider these applications or place them on any of its meeting agendas. On September 23, 1996, the town adopted an amendment to its zoning ordinance that postponed all action on applications for communications towers for 90 days; i.e., it adopted a de facto moratorium.
Sprint filed suit in a state court in New York challenging the aforesaid moratorium. It argued that the town’s actions with respect to its applications for permission to construct the towers violated the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996./2 The court agreed.
In its decision, the court ruled that the moratorium violated several provisions of the Telecommunications Act, specifically the provision that required the town to act on Sprint’s requests for permission to place its facilities within a reasonable time,/3 the provision that the town must deny such permission only in writing and when supported by substantial evidence,/4 and the provision that the town may not enact regulations that have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services./5 The law effectively shifts the burden on applications from the applicant to the municipality, which must prove by substantial evidence why a denial is necessary.
At least one other court that has faced a challenge to a moratorium has ruled that such a moratorium is inappropriate. In Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Jefferson County,/8 a federal district court in Alabama distinguished the facts before it, involving a moratorium issued by the Jefferson County Commission, from the facts in City of Medina. The Alabama court noted that the City of Medina had issued its moratorium only five days after the Telecommunications Act had become law, while the county commission had issued a moratorium about 15 months after the act had become law. The Alabama court noted that the Jefferson County Commission had not offered a legitimate reason for not processing applications under existing regulations while it was considering new amendments to the zoning ordinance.
Indeed, the Alabama court stated, the Jefferson County Commission’s actions “more closely resemble those of the West Seneca Town Board” than of Medina. The Alabama court accordingly ruled that the Jefferson County Commission had failed to comply with the Telecommunications Act.
These cases indicate that a moratorium enacted at this late date in order to enable local governments to comply with the two-year-old federal statute most likely will not be sustained absent extraordinary circumstances because local governments have had the opportunity to adopt regulations for over two years.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law by President Clinton on February 8, 1996, and became the first major revision of the federal telecommunications laws in more than 60 years. In view of rapidly changing technology and the growth of the wireless communications industry — ranging from cellular telephones and paging services to personal communications services products — the law certainly was needed.
Certainly, Congress did not intend that the Telecommunications Act would preempt all local zoning authority with respect to cellular towers./12 As the West Seneca case indicates, however, the Telecommunications Act significantly affects local government’s zoning authority with respect to cellular towers.
The Lucas case arose in April 1997, when the Orange County-Poughkeepsie MSA Limited Partnership, doing business as Bell Atlantic Mobile, and Cellular One applied independently to the Town of LaGrange, in upstate New York, for the necessary permits and approvals to construct two separate telecommunications towers.
Bell Atlantic applied for the permits necessary to erect a 125-foot tower at a site that it called the Freedom Plains Site, located in the Town of LaGrange. Cellular One applied for the permits required to erect a 180-foot tower at a different nearby site, also in the Town of LaGrange. Both Bell Atlantic and Cellular One are licensed to provide cellular telephone service in the area by the Federal Communications Commission.
At the time of the Bell Atlantic and Cellular One applications, the only cellular facility existing in the Town of LaGrange was a single 150-foot tower, erected by Bell Atlantic with the town’s approval in 1987, and located on Industry Street. The new Bell Atlantic and Cellular One applications were based on objective radio frequency calculations that demonstrated that the cellular coverage provided by the existing tower was inadequate for the town as a whole.
The town board, planning board, zoning board, and town planner and zoning administrator all were involved in considering the two new independent tower proposals. From the outset, the town presumed that the companies’ applications would bring SEQRA into play.
The visual impact of a proposed project is one of the environmental factors that is properly considered within the SEQRA process./16 In this case, in response to the initial applications by Bell Atlantic and Cellular One, the town invoked its SEQRA obligations to indicate that its preference was for a single common tower on which both Bell Atlantic and Cellular One would fix their antennae. After a period of consultation with all parties, the companies agreed to propose a single tower with a height of 180 feet at Bell Atlantic’s Freedom Plains site.
Apparently, at some early point in the process, the town determined to oppose the construction of the tower under all circumstances. It undertook its own independent study and the planning board issued a positive SEQRA declaration, meaning that SEQRA was implicated and that the siting of the tower as proposed might have a significant adverse environmental impact. The town also adopted a moratorium that suspended all permits for telecommunications facilities without regard to the merits of the application.
In response to the positive SEQRA declaration and the moratorium, Bell Atlantic initiated an action against the town, in which Cellular One intervened. Together, the companies sought mandamus relief pursuant to the Telecommunications Act and an order compelling the town to issue all necessary permits for the construction of the tower.
Essentially, the companies asserted that the town had not complied with the Telecommunication Act’s provision that requires local municipalities to act on a carrier’s request for permission to place its facilities within a reasonable time; the provision that a municipality must deny such permission only in writing and only where that determination is supported by substantial evidence; and the provision that the town may not enact regulations that have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services — the same provisions of the law involved in the West Seneca case.
The parties resolved their differences and entered into a consent judgment that modified the companies’ applications to the planning board and the zoning board to provide that the height of the tower would be 129 feet rather than the 180 feet originally proposed. In exchange, the town agreed to exempt the companies from the local law moratorium.
The consent judgment also rescinded the positive declaration under SEQRA and the planning board issued a negative declaration. The court approved the consent judgment and the town issued permits necessary for construction of the tower.
Following those actions, owners and residents of certain properties in the Town of LaGrange that were either adjacent to, in close proximity to, or within the view of the tower site and who believed that the tower would have an adverse effect on their property values brought a lawsuit. The plaintiffs contended that in adopting the consent judgment, the town had failed to adhere to the procedures required by SEQRA, violated the substance of SEQRA, deprived them of due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and denied them equal protection in violation of § 1983.
According to the court, tying up Bell Atlantic and Cellular One in the SEQRA “hearing process” was “precisely” what the plaintiffs’ invocation of SEQRA’s procedures sought to achieve.
Both cellular providers and local governments should keep in mind that the provisions of the Telecommunications Act do not remove all power from local governments to regulate cellular towers.
A recent decision by the United States District Court for the Western District of New York,/20 involved an action against the planning board of the Town of Ontario, New York, by Sprint Spectrum, L.P., which had an exclusive license from the Federal Communications Commission to provide digital personal communications services (“PCS”) for the Buffalo Major Trading Area (“MTA”). Sprint had paid $19 million for this ten-year FCC license, which required it to provide PCS service to at least one-third of the population in the Buffalo MTA within five years of the issuance of its license. Sprint maintained that, to provide continuous uninterrupted service, it had to develop an interconnected network of “cell sites” (i.e., antennae mounted on a pole or other structure) to provide overlapping coverage in a grid pattern. The coverage area provided by each antenna depended on the height of the antenna, density of the population, and local topography.
Sprint filed three separate applications for site plan approval to construct cell sites. Sprint’s applications sought individual permits to erect a 150-foot tall steel-gray “monopole” cell tower on each site.
Sprint provided the planning board with simulated photos showing the proposed towers both with foliage on the surrounding trees and without foliage, as requested by the town. Sprint also completed detailed Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements, which included computer-generated maps showing the proposed service areas at the town’s request, as provided by the New York SEQRA law.
The board’s main concern was apparently Sprint’s unwillingness to consider alternatives (or indeed even to provide the town with information about alternatives) with respect to the number, height, and placement of cell towers. Sprint had made a business decision that the town should be classified as “suburban” and, thus, that a signal strong enough for “in-building” coverage was required. Accordingly, Sprint insisted on the approval of all three towers as being necessary to provide adequate (i.e., “in-building”) coverage to the area it sought to service.
The court stated that the central issue was whether the town had exceeded its authority in denying Sprint’s application for three cell towers on the basis that Sprint’s evidence demonstrated that a single tower could adequately perform the function necessary to provide the desired level of service to its cellular customers.
The court then declared that localities “are still left to determine the location and number of towers needed to provide adequate service to their residents.”/25 Accordingly, the court held, by enacting the Telecommunications Act, Congress did not intend to preempt the authority of state and local governments to regulate the location of cell towers within their communities.
The court found that the town had shown by substantial evidence that Sprint could provide the “in-building” level of service to the town with sufficient overlap of coverage to neighboring towns by erecting only one centrally located tower. Evidence in the record that supported the town’s decision included computer-generated diagrams prepared and submitted by Sprint that showed the comparative areas of “in-building” coverage achieved with Sprint’s proposed three towers as opposed to the town’s single, centrally-located 250-foot tower in an industrial zone.
In conclusion, the court stated that the planning board’s denial of site plan approval for Sprint’s proposed three towers was supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The town had made specific written findings after having conducted no less than nine lengthy meetings or hearings on Sprint’s applications. Those findings were based on the evidence submitted to the planning board by Sprint and by other interested parties that supported the conclusion that the proposed towers would have a cumulative economic, environmental, and visual impact on the town.
Although Sprint was entitled to deference, as a public utility, to locate a cellular facility in the Town of Ontario, “it is not entitled to dictate the number and placement of those facilities.” The court then granted the town’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
Local governments have a variety of different actions they can take in response to a cellular provider’s requests for authorization to construct cellular towers, ranging from merely accepting the provider’s demands to working with the provider to reach a middle ground and amending their zoning ordinances in an effort to have more influence on the sitings and characteristics of the towers.
An amended zoning ordinance should reflect the Telecommunications Act and its requirements, balancing the need to prevent uncontrolled proliferation of towers with the right of citizens to use those services and the right of businesses to sell them. Local governments also should make certain that their zoning ordinances do not unreasonably discriminate against providers of functionally equivalent services and do not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting cellular services. They also may want to consider special provisions dealing with cellular towers; designating an official to work with providers and to determine where towers might be acceptable. In addition, they should make certain that building codes contain appropriate requirements, keeping in mind issues such as wind speed and local soil conditions.
The Act gives the FCC, not local governments, authority to set standards for radiofrequency emissions, but local governments can consider certain safety issues, such as those relating to height and setback requirements. Local governments also can consider aesthetics; some communities, for example, require providers to paint their cell towers a certain color or even to camouflage them. Local governments also may want to consider requiring providers to maximize use of existing towers or to co-locate with other providers.
Whatever they decide to do, it is clear that the Telecommunications Act is another federal incursion into home rule. However, although Congress has shifted the power toward the cellular industry, local governments are not powerless in this area. Local governments that have updated their zoning ordinances, conducted appropriate studies, and rely on thoughtful legal advice will find themselves in the best position to respond to, and work with, the wireless communications industry, which has been given a preferred status by the federal government and by some state courts.
John M. Armentano, a partner with the Long Island law firm of Farrell Fritz, P.C., represents local governments and developers in zoning, land use and environmental matters, including litigation.
6. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Town of West Seneca, 659 N.Y.S.2d 687 (Sup.Ct. Erie Co. 1997).
7. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. City of Medina, 924 F.Supp. 1036 (W.D. Wash. 1996).
8. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Jefferson County, 10 Comm. Reg. (P&F) 294 (N.D. Ala., 1997).
9. See Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997).
10. Although different kinds of wireless communications technologies require different kinds and heights of towers, this column will generally refer to “cellular towers” in all circumstances.
11. See, e.g., Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of East Pennsboro Township, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3789 (M.D.Pa. Mar. 24, 1998).
13. 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7538 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 1998).
14. See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.1; ECL 8-0103, subd. 7.
15. See, e.g., In the Matter of Village of Westbury v. Dep’t of Transp. of State of N.Y., 75 N.Y.2d 62 (1989); Jackson v. N.Y. Urban Devel. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400 (1986).
16. See WEOK Broadcasting Corp. v. Planning Board of the Town of Lloyd, 79 N.Y.2d 373 (1992).
17. See, e.g., BellSouth Mobility, Inc. v. Gwinnett Co., 944 F.Supp. 923 (N.D.Ga. 1996).
18. See, e.g., Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Town of Easton, 982 F.Supp. 47, 50 (D.Mass. 1997); see also Paging, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals for County of Montgomery, 957 F.Supp. 805, 808 (W.D.Va. 1997) (federal interest in wireless communications take priority over state zoning authority).
20. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2143 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 1998).
21. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).
22. See Schad v. Borough of Mount Emphraim, 452 U.S. 61, 68 (1981).
23. The court also noted that cellular service facilities are entitled to special zoning considerations under New York law, which has classified cellular providers as “public utilities.” See Cellular Telephone Co. v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y.2d 364 (1993).
24. See Matter of Consolidated Edison v. Hoffman, 43 N.Y.2d 598, 610 (1978).
25. See Consolidated Edison of New York v. Hoffman, 43 N.Y.2d 598 (1978).
26. See Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Fulton, 188 N.Y.S.2d 717 (4th Dep’t 1959) (“In determining the reasonable necessity of a particular site, consideration must be given to the availability of other sites and to the degree of detriment that might be caused by the various sites”).


text:
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is under all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 231, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2973, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting), I would vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas insofar as it left undisturbed the death sentence imposed in this case. However, even if I believed that capital punishment were constitutional under certain circumstances, I would vote to grant this petition because it raises an important and unresolved question about the composition of juries in capital cases.
Petitioner claims that he was denied his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to have his guilt determined by a fair cross-section of the community. Individuals with conscientious objections to the death penalty were excluded from participating in the liability phase of petitioner's trial. Even if it is permissible for the State to bar such jurors from serving on sentencing juries, see Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), there is a substantial question whether they may also be excluded from the guilt-determination process, particularly in light of recently compiled empirical evidence that jurors who favor the death penalty are more likely to vote to convict defendants than jurors who oppose capital punishment. See Berry, Death-Qualification and the "Fireside Induction," 5 UALR L.J. 1 (1982); Winick, Prosecutorial Peremptory Challenge Practices in Capital Cases: An Empirical Study and a Constitutional Analysis, 81 Mich.L.Rev. 1 (1982).
There can be no doubt that petitioner's claim raises a substantial issue of federal constitutional law. In the past, this Court has acknowledged the potential validity of this issue. See, e.g., Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 545, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1790, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968); Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S., at 516-518, 88 S.Ct., at 1774-1775. Again this Term, the claim has come to the attention of the Court. Woodard v. Hutchins, 464 U.S. 377, 382, 104 S.Ct. 752, 753, 78 L.Ed.2d 541 (1984) (POWELL, J., concurring); id., at 379, 104 S.Ct., at 753 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). Although the Supreme Court of Arkansas rejected the claim in this case, a Federal District Court in that State recently granted a writ of habeas corpus raising precisely the same claim. See Grigsby v. Mabry, 569 F.Supp. 1273 (ED Ark.1983), appeal pending, No. 83-2113 (CA8). These two decisions are squarely in conflict. In light of the conflict, the State of Arkansas "joins petitioner in requesting that this Court grant certiorari to decide this issue as a matter of federal constitutional law." Brief for Respondent 2. Were this not a capital case, I seriously doubt whether this Court would ignore the request of the Arkansas Attorney General to address this unsettled area of federal law.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
For over 30 years, the Oklahoma Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has brought the moral power of religious communities to ensure reproductive choice through education and advocacy. The Oklahoma Religious Coalition seeks to give clear voice to the reproductive issues of people of color, those living in poverty, and other underserved populations. We are a statewide coalition of Christian, Jewish, and other religious organizations that believe that a woman should have the freedom to make reproductive choices according to her own religious and moral beliefs.
One of OKRCRC’s most important programs is The Roe Fund which gives financial assistance to help low and no income Oklahoma residents obtain reproductive services. Grants are given directly to abortion providers, who in turn will invoice OKRCRC. Many of the recipients are young single mothers whose children are on Medicaid. If you wish your donation to be applied to The Roe Fund, please indicate so on your donation.
Each year to commemorate the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized reproductive choice, OKRCRC offers you a chance to speak up for women’s reproductive freedom by adding your name to an impressive list of individuals and organizations who stand for religious liberty. The list of supporters will appear in local newspapers along with a statement addressing reproductive choice. If you wish to support the Roe v. Wade message, please make a donation to the Roe v. Wade ad for the coming year by indicating so on your donation. If you wish your donation to remain anonymous, please also indicate so on your donation form.
One of OKRCRC’s most important programs is The Roe Fund which gives financial assistance to help low and no income Oklahoma residents obtain reproductive services. Grants are given directly to abortion providers, who in turn will invoice OKRCRC. Many of the recipients are young single mothers whose children are on Medicaid. Click on the "Donate" button below to donate to The Roe Fund online via PayPal. Or, donate by mail or by phone, using the links and information listed below, making sure you designate on the donation form or on your check that you are donating to The Roe Fund.
Each year to commemorate the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized reproductive choice, OKRCRC offers you a chance to speak up for women’s reproductive freedom by adding your name to an impressive list of individuals and organizations who stand for religious liberty. The list of supporters will appear in local newspapers along with a statement addressing reproductive choice. If you wish to support the Roe v. Wade message, please select the "Donate" button below to make a donation to the Roe v. Wade ad for the coming year online via PayPal or credit card. Or, donate by mail or by phone, using the links and information listed below, making sure you designate on the donation form or on your check that you are donating to the Roe v. Wade ad. Donations may also be made In Honor Of or In Memory of. See the Donation form for more information.
Download, print, and complete a donation form and mail it with your donation to: OKRCRC, P. O. Box 35194, Tulsa, OK 74153.
For more information about donating to OKRCRC call: 918-481-6444.
OKRCRC understands your concerns about privacy on the Internet and take them very seriously. Online giving through us is strictly permission-based: You control the use of your name, your personal information and your donation.
Like other non-profit organizations, we will collect only aggregate information on the number and frequency of visits to various parts of our site so we can make improvements.
We do not sell, rent, trade, or share any personal information about you including your email address. We may send you occasional emails to keep you updated about our activities and the most urgent reproductive rights issues. You will have the option to remove your email address from our list in every electronic correspondence we send you. If you would like to opt out of our email and correspondence, click here.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.