The Oyez Project: 1961 Term Decisions

A. & G. Stevedores v. Ellerman Lines (No. 282)

No details yet.

Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co. (No. 440)

No details yet.

Bailey v. Patterson (No. 643)

No details yet.

Beck v. Washington (No. 40)

No details yet.

Benz v. New York State Thruway (No. 234)

No details yet.

Blau v. Lehman (No. 66)

No details yet.

Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (No. 4)

No details yet.

Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co. (No. 532)

No details yet.

California v. Fed. Power Comm'n (No. 187)

No details yet.

Campbell v. Hussey (No. 42)

No details yet.

Carnley v. Cochran (No. 158)

No details yet.

Central R. Co. v. Pennsylvania (No. 400)

No details yet.

Chewning v. Cunningham (No. 63)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Bilder (No. 384)

No details yet.

Continental Co. v. Union Carbide (No. 304)

No details yet.

Coppedge v. United States (No. 157)

Did Section 401(j) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, divesting U.S. citizens of their citizenship for remaining outside the United States during a time of war or national emergency in order to avoid the draft, violate the procedural safeguard of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments?

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court began by sustaining the validity of the Government's second action against Martinez since it addressed his lost of citizenship rather than revisiting his self-confessed draft evasion. The Court added, however, that although citizenship duties entail military service, the Government cannot divest citizens of their citizenship as a result of draft evasion alone. The imposition of such a drastic penalty, in the context of a reflexive statutory scheme, violates constitutional due process by denying subjects procedural safeguards such as the opportunity to experience a more incremental penal structure.

Cramp v. Bd. Of Public Instruction (No. 72)

No details yet.

Dairy Queen v. Wood (No. 244)

No details yet.

Dibella v. United States (No. 21)

Did the Florida statute violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the statute was based on a reasonable classification and was therefore constitutional. Noting that women were "still regarded as the center of home and family life," the Court found that the states could relieve them from the civic responsibility of jury duty unless they themselves determined that such service was consistent with their own "special responsibilities." The Court held that the case was distinct from other cases involving racial discrimination in jury selection, and that male-female disproportions on jury lists carried no constitutional significance.

Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney (No. 33)

No details yet.

Drake Bakeries v. Bakery Workers (No. 598)

No details yet.

Engel v. Vitale (No. 468)

No details yet.

Enochs v. Williams Packing Co. (No. 493)

No details yet.

Fed. Land Bank v. Kiowa County (No. 25)

No details yet.

Federal Trade Comm'n v. Broch & Co. (No. 74)

No details yet.

Fong Foo v. United States (No. 64)

No details yet.

Free v. Bland (No. 205)

No details yet.

Gallegos v. Colorado (No. 475)

No details yet.

Garner v. Louisiana (No. 26)

No details yet.

Gibson v. Florida Legis. Investigation Comm. (No. 6)

No details yet.

Gilbert v. United States (No. 478)

No details yet.

Glidden Company v. Zdanok (No. 242)

No details yet.

Goldblatt v. Hempstead (No. 78)

No details yet.

Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman (No. 101)

No details yet.

Griggs v. Allegheny County (No. 81)

No details yet.

Grumman v. United States (No. 436)

No details yet.

Guzman v. Pichirilo (No. 358)

No details yet.

Halliburton Oil Well Co. v. Reily (No. 24)

No details yet.

Hamilton v. Alabama (No. 32)

No details yet.

Hanover Bank v. Commissioner (No. 224)

No details yet.

Hill v. United States (No. 68)

No details yet.

Hodges v. United States (No. 58)

No details yet.

Hoyt v. Florida (No. 31)

No details yet.

Hutcheson v. United States (No. 46)

No details yet.

I. C. C. v. J-T Transport Co. (No. 17)

No details yet.

Idlewild Liquor Corp. v. Epstein (No. 138)

No details yet.

In Re Green (No. 312)

Did the Florida Committee, in attempting to inform itself about activities of subversive organizations, violate Gibson's right to free speech and association as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

In a close decision, the Court found that Gibson's rights had been violated. In his opinion, Justice Goldberg recognized the important right of states to inform themselves on "legitimate and vital interests." However, even though inquiring about the actions of a group such as the Communist Party may have been one of these legitimate interests, argued Goldberg, Florida did not prove that a "substantial connection" between the Miami NAACP and Communist Party activities existed. Thus, a "compelling and subordinating governmental interest" would not have been served by forcing Gibson to disclose his group's membership list.

In Re Mcconnell (No. 498)

No details yet.

In Re Zipkin (No. 288)

No details yet.

Kake Village v. Egan (No. 3)

No details yet.

Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (No. 2)

No details yet.

Kesler v. Dept. Of Public Safety (No. 14)

No details yet.

Killian v. United States (No. 7)

No details yet.

Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co. (No. 464)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Katz (No. 222)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corp. (No. 37)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co. (No. 77)

No details yet.

Lanza v. New York (No. 236)

No details yet.

Lehigh Valley Coop. v. United States (No. 79)

No details yet.

Link v. Wabash Railroad Co. (No. 422)

No details yet.

Lynch v. Overholser (No. 159)

No details yet.

Machibroda v. United States (No. 69)

No details yet.

Malone v. Bowdoin (No. 113)

No details yet.

Manual Enterprises v. Day (No. 123)

No details yet.

Marine Engineers v. Interlake Co. (No. 166)

No details yet.

Martin v. Walton (No. 30)

Was the California law an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?

In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court held that laws imprisoning persons afflicted with the "illness" of narcotic addiction inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court likened the law to one making it a criminal offense "to be mentally ill, or a leper, or to be afflicted with a venereal disease," and argued that the state could not punish persons merely because of their "status" of addiction. The Court noted that the law was not aimed at the purchase, sale, or possession of illegal drugs.

Mechling Barge Lines v. U.S. (No. 41)

No details yet.

Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Langdeau (No. 14)

No details yet.

Metlakatla Indians v. Egan (No. 2)

Did the law, as applied to the NAACP's activities, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Yes. The unanimous Court held that the activities of the NAACP amounted to "modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit." NAACP initiated litigation was "a form of political expression" and not "a technique of resolving private differences," argued Brennan.

Morales v. City Of Galveston (No. 480)

No details yet.

NAACP v. Button (No. 5)

No details yet.

Nostrand v. Little (No. 571)

No details yet.

Oyler v. Boles (No. 56)

No details yet.

Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting (No. 45)

No details yet.

Porter v. Aetna Casualty Co. (No. 604)

No details yet.

Public Affairs Press v. Rickover (No. 36)

No details yet.

Retail Clerks v. Lion Dry Goods (No. 73)

No details yet.

Richards v. United States (No. 59)

No details yet.

Robinson v. California (No. 554)

No details yet.

Roper v. United States (No. 16)

No details yet.

Rudolph v. United States (No. 396)

No details yet.

Rusk v. Cort (No. 20)

No details yet.

Russell v. United States (No. 8)

No details yet.

Salem v. United States Lines Co. (No. 283)

No details yet.

Seymour v. Superintendent (No. 62)

No details yet.

Silber v. United States (No. 454)

No details yet.

Simonson v. Granquist (No. 83)

No details yet.

Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson (No. 434)

No details yet.

St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States (No. 47)

No details yet.

State Bd. Of Ins. v. Todd Shipyards (No. 144)

No details yet.

Still v. Norfolk & Western R. Co. (No. 48)

No details yet.

Sunkist v. Winckler & Smith Co. (No. 241)

No details yet.

Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co. (No. 50)

No details yet.

Teamsters v. Yellow Transit (No. 13)

No details yet.

Turnbow v. Commissioner (No. 60)

No details yet.

Turner v. City Of Memphis (No. 84)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Union Central Life Ins. Co. (No. 52)

No details yet.

United Gas Co. v. Ideal Cement Co. (No. 61)

No details yet.

United States v. Borden Co. (No. 439)

No details yet.

United States v. Davis (No. 190)

No details yet.

United States v. Diebold, Inc. (No. 286)

No details yet.

United States v. Drum (No. 23)

No details yet.

United States v. National Dairy Corp. (No. 18)

No details yet.

United States v. Patrick (No. 22)

No details yet.

United States v. Wise (No. 488)

No details yet.

Vaughan v. Atkinson (No. 323)

No details yet.

Venus v. United States (No. 75)

No details yet.

Western Union Co. v. Pennsylvania (No. 15)

No details yet.

Wood v. Georgia (No. 369)

No details yet.