The Oyez Project: 1957 Term Decisions

Alaska Ind. Bd. v. Chugach Assn. (No. 303)

No details yet.

Alcorta v. Texas (No. 139)

No details yet.

American Airlines v. North American (No. 55)

No details yet.

American Motors Corp. v. Kenosha (No. 343)

No details yet.

American Trucking Assns. v. U.S. (No. 6)

No details yet.

Ashdown v. Utah (No. 158)

No details yet.

Automobile Workers v. Russell (No. 21)

No details yet.

Bartkus v. Illinois (No. 39)

No details yet.

Bartkus v. Illinois (No. 1)

No details yet.

Beilan v. Board Of Education (No. 63)

No details yet.

Benanti v. United States (No. 231)

No details yet.

Black v. Amen (No. 13)

No details yet.

Black v. Magnolia Liquor Co. (No. 14)

No details yet.

Bonetti v. Rogers (No. 94)

No details yet.

Byrd v. Blue Ridge Cooperative (No. 57)

No details yet.

California Comm'n v. United States (No. 23)

No details yet.

Caritativo v. California (No. 561)

No details yet.

Carpenters' Union v. Labor Board (No. 127)

No details yet.

Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (No. 103)

No details yet.

Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Illinois (No. 12)

No details yet.

Cicenia v. Lagay (No. 177)

No details yet.

Cities Service v. State Comm'n (No. 85)

No details yet.

City Of Detroit v. Murray Corp. (No. 18)

No details yet.

City Of Tacoma v. Taxpayers (No. 509)

No details yet.

Ciucci v. Illinois (No. 157)

No details yet.

Colony, Inc., v. Commissioner (No. 306)

No details yet.

Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Loew's Inc. (No. 90)

No details yet.

Commissioner Of Internal Revenue v. P. G. Lake, Inc. (No. 108)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Stern (No. 311)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Sullivan (No. 119)

No details yet.

Conley v. Gibson (No. 7)

No details yet.

County Of Marin v. United States (No. 415)

No details yet.

Crooker v. California (No. 178)

No details yet.

Dayton v. Dulles (No. 621)

No details yet.

Denver Stock Yard v. Livestock Assn. (No. 106)

No details yet.

Dessalernos v. Savoretti (No. 287)

No details yet.

Eskridge v. Washington Prison Bd. (No. 96)

No details yet.

Eubanks v. Louisiana (No. 550)

No details yet.

F. T. C. v. National Casualty Co. (No. 435)

No details yet.

F. T. C. v. Standard Oil Co. (No. 24)

No details yet.

Fidelity-Phila. Trust Co. v. Smith (No. 130)

No details yet.

First Unit. Church v. Los Angeles (No. 382)

No details yet.

Flora v. United States (No. 492)

No details yet.

Flora v. United States (No. 492)

No details yet.

Giordenello v. United States (No. 549)

No details yet.

Gordon v. Texas (No. 71)

No details yet.

Gore v. United States (No. 668)

No details yet.

Green v. United States (No. 100)

No details yet.

Grimes v. Raymond Concrete Pile Co. (No. 456)

No details yet.

Hanson v. Denckla (No. 107)

No details yet.

Harmon v. Brucker (No. 80)

No details yet.

Heikkinen v. United States (No. 89)

No details yet.

Hoag v. New Jersey (No. 40)

No details yet.

Hoover Express Co. v. United States (No. 95)

No details yet.

Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. Mccracken (No. 122)

No details yet.

Jones v. United States (No. 331)

No details yet.

Kent v. Dulles (No. 481)

Could the Executive's Passport Department defer or refuse the issuance of passports to individuals suspected of being Communists or of traveling abroad to further Communist causes?

No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the right to travel is an inherent element of "liberty" that cannot be denied to American citizens. Although the Executive may regulate the travel practices of citizens, by requiring them to obtain valid passports, it may not condition the fulfillment of such requirements with the imposition of rules that abridge basic constitutional notions of liberty, assembly, association, and personal autonomy.

Kernan v. American Dredging Co. (No. 34)

No details yet.

Knapp v. Schweitzer (No. 189)

No details yet.

Kovacs v. Brewer (No. 200)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp. (No. 53)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Duval Jewelry Co. (No. 234)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Mine Workers (No. 64)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Steelworkers (No. 81)

No details yet.

Ladner v. United States (No. 41)

No details yet.

Ladner v. United States (No. 2)

No details yet.

Lawn v. United States (No. 9)

No details yet.

Lee Kum Hoy v. Murff (No. 32)

No details yet.

Leng May Ma v. Barber (No. 105)

No details yet.

Lerner v. Casey (No. 165)

No details yet.

Lewis v. Labor Board (No. 684)

No details yet.

Machinists v. Gonzales (No. 31)

No details yet.

Maisenberg v. United States (No. 76)

No details yet.

Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen Co. (No. 73)

No details yet.

Masciale v. United States (No. 84)

No details yet.

Mcallister v. Magnolia Petro. Co. (No. 83)

No details yet.

Mcgee v. International Life Ins. Co. (No. 50)

No details yet.

Mckinney v. Missouri-K.-T. R. Co. (No. 93)

No details yet.

Miller v. United States (No. 126)

No details yet.

Moog Industries, Inc., v. F. T. C. (No. 77)

No details yet.

Moore v. Michigan (No. 42)

No details yet.

NAACP v. Alabama (No. 91)

Did Alabama's requirement violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes. The unanimous Court held that a compelled disclosure of the NAACP's membership lists would have the effect of suppressing legal association among the group's members. Nothing short of an "overriding valid interest of the State," something not present in this case, was needed to justify Alabama's actions.

Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co. (No. 67)

No details yet.

Nelson v. Tennessee (No. 56)

No details yet.

Nelson, Inc., v. United States (No. 16)

No details yet.

Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States (No. 59)

No details yet.

Nowak v. United States (No. 72)

No details yet.

Panama Canal Co. v. Grace Line, Inc. (No. 251)

No details yet.

Payne v. Arkansas (No. 99)

No details yet.

Pub. Service Comm'n v. United States (No. 15)

No details yet.

Rainwater v. United States (No. 276)

No details yet.

Rathbun v. United States (No. 30)

No details yet.

Reeves v. Alabama (No. 66)

No details yet.

Rogers v. Quan (No. 396)

No details yet.

Romero v. International Term. Co. (No. 3)

No details yet.

Safeway Stores, Inc., v. Vance (No. 69)

No details yet.

Schaffer Transp. Co. v. U.S. (No. 20)

No details yet.

Sherman v. United States (No. 87)

No details yet.

Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. (No. 133)

No details yet.

Societe Internationale v. Rogers (No. 348)

No details yet.

Speiser v. Randall (No. 483)

No details yet.

Staub v. City Of Baxley (No. 48)

No details yet.

Tank Truck Rentals v. Commissioner (No. 109)

No details yet.

Thomas v. Arizona (No. 88)

No details yet.

Triplett v. Iowa (No. 547)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Ball Construction Co. (No. 97)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Central Eureka Mining Co. (No. 29)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Schaefer Brewing Co. (No. 79)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Township Of Muskegon (No. 37)

No details yet.

United States v. Bess (No. 395)

No details yet.

United States v. City Of Detroit (No. 26)

No details yet.

United States v. Cores (No. 455)

No details yet.

United States v. Dow (No. 102)

No details yet.

United States v. Hvass (No. 92)

No details yet.

United States v. Massei (No. 98)

No details yet.

United States v. Mcninch (No. 146)

No details yet.

United States v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co. (No. 45)

No details yet.

United States v. Procter & Gamble (No. 51)

No details yet.

United States v. Sharpnack (No. 35)

No details yet.

United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co. (No. 1)

No details yet.

Virginia v. Maryland (No. 12 ORIG)

No details yet.

Weyerhaeuser S. S. Co. v. Nacirema Co. (No. 75)

No details yet.

Wiener v. United States (No. 52)

Did President Eisenhower have the authority to terminate Wiener's membership on the Commission?

In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the President did not have the authority to remove individuals from the War Claims Commission at will. The Court found that Congress had intended to create a body that was "'entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect,' of either the Executive or the Congress." The "intrinsic judicial character" of the Commission's duties required that it be able to adjudicate claims solely on the merits of each claim free of external Executive pressure." Congress did not wish to have hand over the Commission the Damocles' sword of removal by the President for no reason other than that he preferred to have on that Commission men of his own choosing."

Wilson v. Girard (No. 1103)

No details yet.

Wilson v. Loew's Inc. (No. 33)

No details yet.

Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc. (No. 11)

No details yet.