Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 273 U. S. 126, 131. Cf. Trunkline Gas Co. v. Hardin County, 375 U. S. 8. Accordingly, it is appropriate to allow the Alaska court to consider the effect of the new Alaska statutes upon this case. To that end, the petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alaska is vacated, and this case is remanded to that court for such further consideration as may be deemed appropriate by that court under Alaska law. Vacated and remanded. PARROT ET AL. v.. CITY OF TALLAHASSEE. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA. No. 958. Decided May 3, 1965. A minor procedural defect which petitioners tried to correct does not constitute an adequate independent state ground for decision barring review by this Court. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed. Robinson v. Florida, 378 U. S. 153. Certiorari granted and judgment reversed. Jack Greenberg and Derrick A. Bell, Jr., for petitioners. Roy T. Rhodes and Edw. J. Hill for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Florida Circuit Court is reversed. Robinson v. Florida, 378 U. S. 153. Respondent asserts that the judgment below rests on an adequate independent state ground in that petitioners, through misunderstanding or oversight, failed to obtain certification of the Circuit Court record submitted with their otherwise timely petition for writ of certiorari in the Florida District Court of Appeal, First District. Petitioners tried to correct this non jurisdictional defect (see, e. g., Aris v. State, 162 So. 2d 670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.)) when notified of it, but their petition was dismissed nonetheless. We do not find this procedural ground adequate to bar review by this Court. See Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449; NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U. S. 288. 381 U.S. May 3, 1965. MCCLELLAN v. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, CUYAHOGA COUNTY. No. 994. Decided May 3, 1965. Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Richard M. Markus for appellant. John G. Cardinal and Edwin Knachel for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Syllabus. HOLT ET AL. v. VIRGINIA. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS No. 464. Argued April 27-28, 1965-Decided May 17, 1965. A state judge denied a motion of petitioner Dawley that the judge disqualify himself for bias from trying Dawley for contempt arising out of his conduct as a lawyer in handling a libel case pending in that judge's court. In arguing a subsequent change of venue motion which Dawley filed, another lawyer, petitioner Holt, read to the judge that motion, which charged the judge with "acting as police officer, chief prosecution witness. . . grand jury, chief prosecutor and judge" with respect to the contempt case against Dawley and with intimidating and harassing Holt in his efforts to defend Dawley. The judge then summarily adjudged both petitioners in contempt for the change of venue plea, which he denied, and for the supporting argument and later fined each $50. The State's highest court affirmed, holding that the language used in the motion violated a state statute authorizing summary contempt punishment for use of "[v]ile, contemptuous or insulting language”. concerning a judge's official acts. Held: Petitioners were deprived of their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for doing no more than exercising the constitutional right of an accused and his counsel to defend against the contempt charges made against them. Pp. 136-138. (a) A defendant charged with contempt such as this has the constitutional right to be heard and to be represented by counsel, who also has a constitutional right to present his client's case. P. 136. (b) The motion for change of venue to escape a biased tribunal raised a relevant issue. P. 136. (c) The assertedly "insulting" character of the charges in the motions was inherent in the issue of bias raised. P. 137. 205 Va. 332, 136 S. E. 2d 809, reversed and remanded. Marvin M. Karpatkin argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Melvin L. Wulf, Joseph A. Jordan and Leonard W. Holt. Opinion of the Court. 381 U.S. Francis C. Lee argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Robert Y. Button, Attorney General of Virginia, and D. Gardiner Tyler, Assistant Attorney General. MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. The petitioners, both of whom are lawyers, were adjudged guilty and each was fined $50 for contempt of court by the Circuit Court of the City of Hopewell, Virginia. The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioners' contentions that their convictions violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 205 Va. 332, 136 S. E. 2d 809. We granted certiorari. 379 U. S. 957. The charges against petitioners came about in this way. Petitioner Dawley represented certain defendants in a libel suit pending before Circuit Judge Holladay. The libel case was dismissed by agreement of the parties. After the dismissal Judge Holladay had the court clerk and counsel, including the petitioner Dawley, come into the judge's chambers and there the judge asked Dawley three times if he had had anything to do with making the defendants in the libel case "unavailable to be served with subpoenas." Dawley refused to answer and later, in court, again refused to answer. Judge Holladay then directed the Commonwealth's Attorney to prepare an order directing Dawley to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. Dawley thereafter filed a motion requesting Judge Holladay to disqualify himself from trying the contempt case. Judge Holladay denied this motion. Dawley then filed a motion for change of venue. Petitioner Holt appeared as counsel representing Dawley and read this motion to the judge as a part of his argument urging a change of venue. It is upon the allega |