Cases - 1954 term

Rice v. Sioux City Cemetery

Mon, 08 Nov 1954 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Rice

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sioux City Cemetery

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1954-1955)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

349 U.S. 70 (1955)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1954

Decided

Monday, May 9, 1955

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Sioux City Cemetery, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Berman v. Parker

Tue, 19 Oct 1954 13:00:00 +0000

Location

A department store

712 4th St SW Washington DC 20024

Washington, DC 20024

United States

33° 52' 52.3812" N, 77° 1' 3.1008" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellant

Berman

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Parker

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Warren Court (1954-1955)

Decided By

Warren Court (1954-1955)

Opinion

348 U.S. 26 (1954)

Argued

Tuesday, October 19, 1954

Decided

Monday, November 22, 1954

Advocates

James C. Toomey (argued the cause for the appellants)

Joseph H. Schneider (argued the cause for the appellants)

Simon Sobeloff (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

In 1945, Congress passed the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act, creating the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, whose purpose would be to identify and redevelop blighted areas of Washington, D.C. Congress gave the new agency the power of eminent domain – the ability to seize private property with just compensation. Berman and the other appellants owned a department store in one blighted area targeted by the commission and objected to the seizing of their property solely for beautification of the area. The landowners brought a civil suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the Act. Their case was dismissed. They then appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Question

Did the seizing of Berman and the other appellants' property for the purpose of beautification and redevelopment of the community violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Parker, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

No. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice William O. Douglas, the Court found that the Fifth Amendment does not limit Congress' power to seize private property with just compensation to any specific purpose. The Court concluded that the power to determine what values to consider in seizing property for public welfare is Congress' alone. "If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation's Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way."

Williams v. Georgia

Mon, 18 Apr 1955 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

412

Petitioner

Williams

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Georgia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

349 U.S. 375 (1955)

Argued

Monday, April 18, 1955

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1955

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Williams, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Toth v. Quarles

Tue, 08 Feb 1955 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Toth

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Quarles

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1954-1955)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

350 U.S. 11 (1955)

Argued

Tuesday, February 8, 1955

Reargued:

Thursday, October 13, 1955

Decided

Monday, November 7, 1955

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Toth, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11: War Power

None

Society For Savings v. Bowers

Mon, 28 Mar 1955 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

204

Appellee

Bowers

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Society For Savings

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 220

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

349 U.S. 143 (1955)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1955

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1955

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Society For Savings, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Peters v. Hobby

Tue, 19 Apr 1955 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

376

Petitioner

Peters

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hobby

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

349 U.S. 331 (1955)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1955

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1955

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Peters, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines

Wed, 17 Nov 1954 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Castle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hayes Freight Lines

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1954-1955)

Decided By

Warren Court (1954-1955)

Opinion

348 U.S. 61 (1954)

Argued

Wednesday, November 17, 1954

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1954

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hayes Freight Lines, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Motor Carrier

None

Brown v. Board of Education (II)

Mon, 11 Apr 1955 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Board of Education

120 SE 10th Ave Topeka KS 66612

Topeka, KS 66612

United States

39° 2' 45.6432" N, 95° 40' 28.9092" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Board of Education of Topeka

Respondent

Brown

Consolidation

Briggs v. Elliott, No. 2

Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, No. 3

Bolling v. Sharpe, No. 4

Gebhart v. Belton, No. 5

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

349 U.S. 294 (1955)

Argued

April 11-14, 1955

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1955

Facts of the Case

After its decision in Brown I which declared racial discrimination in public education unconstitutional, the Court convened to issue the directives which would help to implement its newly announced Constitutional principle. Given the embedded nature of racial discrimination in public schools and the diverse circumstances under which it had been practiced, the Court requested further argument on the issue of relief.

Question

What means should be used to implement the principles announced in Brown I?

Conclusion

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

The Court held that the problems identified in Brown I required varied local solutions. Chief Justice Warren conferred much responsibility on local school authorities and the courts which originally heard school segregation cases. They were to implement the principles which the Supreme Court embraced in its first Brown decision. Warren urged localities to act on the new principles promptly and to move toward full compliance with them "with all deliberate speed."

Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural Co.

Wed, 30 Mar 1955 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

357

Petitioner

Maneja

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Waialua Agricultural Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 358

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

349 U.S. 254 (1955)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1955

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1955

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Maneja, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma

Wed, 02 Mar 1955 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Lee Optical Co.

N Robinson Ave & W Main St. Oklahoma City OK 73102

Oklahoma City, OK 73102

United States

35° 28' 3.7128" N, 97° 30' 58.6548" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

184

Appellee

Lee Optical of Oklahoma

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Williamson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 185

Heard By

Warren Court (1954-1955)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

348 U.S. 483 (1955)

Argued

Wednesday, March 2, 1955

Decided

Monday, March 28, 1955

Facts of the Case

An Oklahoma law prohibited persons who were not licensed optometrists or ophthalmologists to fit lenses for eyeglasses. Non-licensed individuals were also prohibited from duplicating optical instruments without written prescriptions from licensed ophthalmologists. The Lee Optical Company challenged the law, bringing a suit against the state Attorney General, Mac Q. Williamson.

Question

Did the Oklahoma law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Williamson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that while the law may have been "needless" and "wasteful," it was the duty of the legislature, not the courts, "to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the new requirement." The Court emphasized that "[t]he day is gone when this Court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought."

Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros.

Fri, 04 Mar 1955 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

173

Petitioner

Clothing Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Richman Bros.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1954-1955)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

348 U.S. 511 (1955)

Argued

Friday, March 4, 1955

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1955

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Richman Bros., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2283

None