The Oyez Project: 1958 Term Decisions

Abbate v. United States (No. 7)

No details yet.

Abel v. United States (No. 2)

No details yet.

Alaska v. American Can Co. (No. 40)

No details yet.

Allegheny County v. Mashuda Co. (No. 347)

No details yet.

Allied Stores Of Ohio v. Bowers (No. 10)

No details yet.

American Trucking Assns. v. Frisco Co. (No. 15)

No details yet.

Anonymous v. Baker (No. 378)

No details yet.

Arroyo v. United States (No. 246)

No details yet.

Atlantic Rfg. Co. v. Pub. Ser v. Comm'n (No. 518)

No details yet.

Baker v. Texas & P. R. Co. (No. 363)

No details yet.

Barenblatt v. United States (No. 35)

Did the House Committee's investigation into Barenblatt's affiliations with the Communist Party transgress his First Amendment protections which limit congressional inquiries?

The divided Court found that the Committee's actions did not violate the First Amendment and, thus, upheld Barenblatt's conviction for contempt of Congress. Justice Harlan noted that the First Amendment does not protect a witness from all lines of questioning. As long as the Congressional inquiry is pursued to "aid the legislative process" and to protect important government interests, then it is legitimate.

Barr v. Matteo (No. 350)

No details yet.

Beacon Theatres v. Westover (No. 45)

No details yet.

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc. (No. 94)

Did a law which required a specific type of rear mudguard on trucks and trailers operated on Illinois's state highways conflict with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution?

Yes. The Court held that the Illinois requirement did place an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. While arguing that safety measures "carry a strong presumption of validity when challenged," Justice Douglas nevertheless affirmed that if the effect of such measures are "slight or problematical" then the interests of commerce should prevail. Since the Illinois law was unlike the requirements of almost all of the other states in the nation, the Court found that it did place a great burden on the interstate transport of goods.

Brown v. United States (No. 4)

No details yet.

Burns v. Ohio (No. 581)

No details yet.

California v. Washington (No. 12 ORIG)

No details yet.

Cammarano v. United States (No. 29)

No details yet.

Cash v. Culver (No. 91)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Hansen (No. 380)

No details yet.

Cooper v. Aaron (No. 1)

Were Arkansas officials bound by federal court orders mandating desegregation?

In a signed, unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Arkansas officials were bound by federal court orders that rested on the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The Court noted that its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Brown was the supreme law of the land and that it had a "binding effect" on the states. The Court reaffirmed its commitment to desegregation and reiterated that legislatures are not at liberty to annul judgments of the Court.

Crumady v. The J. H. Fisser (No. 61)

No details yet.

Dick v. New York Life Ins. Co. (No. 58)

No details yet.

Draper v. United States (No. 136)

No details yet.

Evers v. Dwyer (No. 382)

No details yet.

F. H. A. v. The Darlington, Inc. (No. 13)

No details yet.

F. T. C. v. Mandel Brothers (No. 234)

No details yet.

F. T. C. v. Simplicity Pattern Co. (No. 406)

No details yet.

Farmers Union v. Wday (No. 248)

No details yet.

Felter v. Southern Pacific Co. (No. 269)

No details yet.

Flaxer v. United States (No. 60)

No details yet.

Flemming v. Florida Citrus Exch. (No. 27)

No details yet.

Frank v. Maryland (No. 278)

No details yet.

Ganger v. City Of Miami (No. 153)

No details yet.

Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern Terminal (No. 446)

No details yet.

Greene v. Mcelroy (No. 180)

No details yet.

Greene v. United States (No. 134)

No details yet.

Hahn v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co. (No. 52)

No details yet.

Harris v. United States (No. 11)

No details yet.

Harrison v. N. A. A. C. P. (No. 127)

No details yet.

Hawkins v. United States (No. 20)

No details yet.

Heflin v. United States (No. 137)

No details yet.

Herd & Co. v. Krawill Machinery Corp. (No. 276)

No details yet.

Hinkle v. New England Ins. Co. (No. 28)

No details yet.

Hotel Employees v. Leedom (No. 21)

No details yet.

Hotel Employees v. Sax Enterprises (No. 5)

No details yet.

Howard v. Lyons (No. 57)

No details yet.

Illinois v. Michigan (No. 15 ORIG)

No details yet.

In Re Sawyer (No. 326)

No details yet.

Ingram v. United States (No. 457)

No details yet.

International Boxing Club v. U.S. (No. 18)

No details yet.

Irvin v. Dowd (No. 63)

No details yet.

Jennings v. Ragen (No. 185 MISC)

No details yet.

Joseph v. Indiana (No. 8)

No details yet.

Kelly v. Kosuga (No. 267)

No details yet.

Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale (No. 22)

No details yet.

Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents (No. 394)

No details yet.

Klor's v. Broadway-Hale Stores (No. 76)

No details yet.

Koller v. United States (No. 362)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Cabot Carbon Co. (No. 329)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Fant Milling Co. (No. 482)

No details yet.

Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd. (No. 584)

No details yet.

Lee v. Madigan (No. 42)

No details yet.

Leedom v. Kyne (No. 14)

No details yet.

Lev v. United States (No. 435)

No details yet.

Louisiana P. & L. Co. v. Thibodaux City (No. 398)

No details yet.

Magenau v. Aetna Freight Lines (No. 439)

No details yet.

Marshall v. United States (No. 383)

No details yet.

Martin v. Creasy (No. 157)

No details yet.

Melrose Distillers v. United States (No. 404)

No details yet.

Mills v. Louisiana (No. 74)

No details yet.

Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co. (No. 161)

No details yet.

Mitchell v. Lublin, Mcgaughy & Asso. (No. 37)

No details yet.

N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama (No. 753)

No details yet.

Napue v. Illinois (No. 583)

No details yet.

New York v. O'neill (No. 53)

No details yet.

Northwestern Cement Co. v. Minn. (No. 12)

No details yet.

Palermo v. United States (No. 471)

No details yet.

Parsons v. Smith (No. 218)

No details yet.

Patterson v. United States (No. 429)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Day (No. 397)

No details yet.

Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Comm'n. (No. 233)

No details yet.

Peurifoy v. Commissioner (No. 46)

No details yet.

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. U.S. (No. 489)

No details yet.

Plumbers' Union v. Door County (No. 396)

No details yet.

Railway Express Agency v. Virginia (No. 38)

No details yet.

Raley v. Ohio (No. 175)

No details yet.

Rosenberg v. United States (No. 451)

No details yet.

S. E. C. v. Variable Annuity Co. (No. 290)

No details yet.

S. W. Sugar Co. v. River Terminals (No. 155)

No details yet.

Safeway Stores v. Oklahoma Grocers (No. 252)

No details yet.

San Diego Unions v. Garmon (No. 66)

No details yet.

Scales v. United States (No. 1)

Does a Communist Party member's conviction under the Smith Act, which makes a felony the knowing membership in organizations advocating the violent or forceful overthrow of the United States government, violate the Fifth Amendment's due process clause in light of the apparent protections afforded to such members under the Internal Security Act?

No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the Security Act protects "per se" members of an organization from criminal prosecution. The Smith Act, by contrast, goes beyond "per se" participation by targeting those whose membership in an organization entails their knowing and deliberate participation in criminal activity. In light of this distinction, the Court noted, the two Acts are not conflicted. Since Scales, at the very least, knew, encouraged, and provoked illegal Party activities over the course of his eight year membership, he was guilty under the Smith Act of complicity in the commission of criminal activity.

Scull v. Virginia (No. 51)

No details yet.

Service Transfer Co. v. Virginia (No. 92)

No details yet.

Sims v. United States (No. 88)

No details yet.

Smith v. United States (No. 90)

No details yet.

Spano v. New York (No. 582)

No details yet.

Spevack v. Strauss (No. 339)

No details yet.

T. I. M. E. Inc. v. United States (No. 68)

No details yet.

Tak Shan Fong v. United States (No. 110)

No details yet.

Taylor v. Mcelroy (No. 504)

No details yet.

Teamsters Union v. Oliver (No. 49)

No details yet.

The Monrosa v. Carbon Black, Inc. (No. 178)

No details yet.

The Tungus v. Skovgaard (No. 43)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Embassy Restaurant (No. 174)

No details yet.

Union Pacific R. Co. v. Price (No. 414)

No details yet.

United Gas Co. v. Memphis Gas Di (No. 23)

No details yet.

United Pilots Assn. v. Halecki (No. 56)

No details yet.

United States v. 93.970 Acres (No. 573)

No details yet.

United States v. A & P Trucking Co. (No. 32)

No details yet.

United States v. Atlantic Rfg. Co. (No. 210)

No details yet.

United States v. Isthmian S. S. Co. (No. 285)

No details yet.

United States v. R. C. A. (No. 54)

No details yet.

United States v. Shirey (No. 72)

No details yet.

Uphaus v. Wyman (No. 34)

No details yet.

Vitarelli v. Seaton (No. 101)

No details yet.

Williams v. Lee (No. 39)

No details yet.

Williams v. Oklahoma (No. 124)

No details yet.

Woody v. United States (No. 135)

No details yet.

Youngstown Co. v. Bowers (No. 9)

No details yet.