Cases - 1953 term

Longshoremen's Union v. Boyd

Wed, 06 Jan 1954 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

195

Appellee

Boyd

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Longshoremen's Union

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

347 U.S. 222 (1954)

Argued

Wednesday, January 6, 1954

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1954

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Boyd, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Linehan v. Waterfront Commission

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:11:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

557

Appellee

Waterfront Commission

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Linehan

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 558

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

347 U.S. 439 (1954)

Decided

Monday, April 12, 1954

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Waterfront Commission, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1253

None

Accardi v. Shaughnessy

Tue, 02 Feb 1954 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

366

Petitioner

Accardi

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shaughnessy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

347 U.S. 260 (1954)

Argued

Tuesday, February 2, 1954

Decided

Monday, March 15, 1954

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Accardi, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock

Mon, 04 Jan 1954 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

115

Appellee

Scurlock

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kern-Limerick, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

347 U.S. 110 (1954)

Argued

Monday, January 4, 1954

Decided

Monday, February 8, 1954

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kern-Limerick, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Braniff Airways v. Nebraska Board

Fri, 12 Mar 1954 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

476

Appellee

Nebraska Board

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Braniff Airways

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

347 U.S. 590 (1954)

Argued

Friday, March 12, 1954

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1954

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Nebraska Board, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Sacher v. Association Of The Bar

Thu, 11 Mar 1954 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

307

Petitioner

Sacher

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Association Of The Bar

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

347 U.S. 388 (1954)

Argued

Thursday, March 11, 1954

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1954

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Sacher, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

St. Joe Paper Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.

Thu, 15 Oct 1953 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

St. Joe Paper Co.

Respondent

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.

Consolidation

Lynch v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., No. 33

Aird et al., Trustees v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., No. 36

Welbon et al. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., No. 37

Heard By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

347 U.S. 298 (1954)

Argued

Thursday, October 15, 1953

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1954

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Theatre Enterprises v. Paramount

Mon, 30 Nov 1953 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Theatre Enterprises

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Paramount

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

346 U.S. 537 (1954)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1953

Decided

Monday, January 4, 1954

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Paramount, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Wilko v. Swan

Wed, 21 Oct 1953 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Wilko

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Swan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

346 U.S. 427 (1953)

Argued

Wednesday, October 21, 1953

Decided

Monday, December 7, 1953

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Wilko, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Hernandez v. Texas

Mon, 11 Jan 1954 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

406

Petitioner

Hernandez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

347 U.S. 475 (1954)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1954

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1954

Advocates

Carlos C. Cadena (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Gus C. Garcia (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Horace Wimberly (Argued the cause for respondent)

Facts of the Case

Pete Hernandez, an agricultural worker, was indicted for the murder of Joe Espinoza by an all-Anglo (white) grand jury in Jackson County, Texas. Claiming that Mexican-Americans were barred from the jury commission that selected juries, and from petit juries, Hernandez' attorneys tried to quash the indictment. Moreover, Hernandez tried to quash the petit jury panel called for service, because persons of Mexican descent were excluded from jury service in this case. A Mexican-American had not served on a jury in Jackson County in over 25 years and thus, Hernandez claimed that Mexican ancestry citizens were discriminated against as a special class in Jackson County. The trial court denied the motions. Hernandez was found guilty of murder and sentenced by the all-Anglo jury to life in prison. In affirming, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that "Mexicans are...members of and within the classification of the white race as distinguished from members of the Negro Race" and rejected the petitioners' argument that they were a "special class" under the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, the court pointed out that "so far as we are advised, no member of the Mexican nationality" challenged this classification as white or Caucasian.

Question

Is it a denial of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause to try a defendant of a particular race or ethnicity before a jury where all persons of his race or ancestry have, because of that race or ethnicity, been excluded by the state?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hernandez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the two classes of white or Negro, and extends to other racial groups in communities depending upon whether it can be factually established that such a group exists within a community. In reversing, the Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment "is not directed solely against discrimination due to a 'two-class theory'" but in this case covers those of Mexican ancestry. This was established by the fact that the distinction between whites and Mexican ancestry individuals was made clear at the Jackson County Courthouse itself where "there were two men's toilets, one unmarked, and the other marked 'Colored Men and 'Hombres Aqui' ('Men Here')," and by the fact that no Mexican ancestry person had served on a jury in 25 years. Mexican Americans were a "special class" entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Abstract submitted by Professor Marc S. Rodriguez

Irvine v. California

jgoldman — Mon, 30 Nov 1953 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Patrick Irvine residence

3916 East Second Street Long Beach CA 90803

Long Beach, CA 90803

United States

33° 45' 43.8156" N, 118° 8' 47.6484" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Patrick Irvine

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

347 U.S. 128 (1954)

Argued

Monday, November 30, 1953

Decided

Monday, February 8, 1954

Advocates

Morris Lavine (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Elizabeth Miller (Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for the respondent)

Clarence A. Linn (Assistant Attorney General of California, argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Patrick Irvine was suspected by police of placing bets on horse racing and serving as a bookmaker in violation of California state law. Acting on their suspicions, the police duplicated the key to Irvine's residence and installed a microphone inside. Through the microphone, which was moved between several locations within the house, police obtained evidence that was submitted in Irvine's trial. When Irvine was arrested, he was found in possession of a federal wagering tax stamp as required by federal tax law. Irvine was convicted in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. He challenged his conviction, alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment) were violated and therefore the evidence admitted during his state court trial should have been excluded. The California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate Division upheld his conviction.

Question

Should evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizure require the exclusion of such evidence in a state court trial for violation of state criminal law?

Conclusion

No. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld Irvine's conviction though without commanding a majority as to the Court's reasoning. Announcing the judgment and writing for a plurality, Justice Robert H. Jackson acknowledged and criticized the conduct of the police, which "flagrantly, deliberately, and persistently violated the fundamental principle declared by the Fourth Amendment." However, as in Wolf v. Colorado, "the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure." The evidence obtained from the microphone did not have to be excluded from Irvine's trial, and was admitted consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, though Irvine's constitutional rights were violated, his conviction was nonetheless valid. Justice Tom C. Clark authored a concurring opinion.