The Oyez Project: 1962 Term Decisions

Abington School District v. Schempp (No. 142)

No details yet.

Andrews v. United States (No. 491)

No details yet.

Arizona v. California (No. 8 ORIG)

No details yet.

Arlan's Dept. Store v. Kentucky (No. 503)

No details yet.

Arrow Transp. Co. v. Southern R. Co. (No. 430)

Did the arrests and convictions of the marchers violate their freedom of speech, assembly, and petition for redress of their grievances as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Yes. The Court held that the arrests and convictions violated the rights of the marchers. They were convicted of an offense which the South Carolina Supreme Court, in upholding the convictions, described as "not susceptible of exact definition." The evidence used to prosecute the marchers did not even remotely prove that their actions were violent. Hence, Justice Stewart found clear constitutional violations in this case. Stewart called the marchers' actions an exercise of First Amendment rights "in their most pristine and classic form" and emphasized that a state cannot "make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views" as South Carolina attempted to do here.

Avent v. North Carolina (No. 11)

No details yet.

B. & O. R. Co. v. Boston & M. R. Co. (No. 97)

No details yet.

Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (No. 118)

No details yet.

Basham v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (No. 512)

No details yet.

Best v. Humboldt Mining Co. (No. 52)

No details yet.

Boesche v. Udall (No. 332)

No details yet.

Brady v. Maryland (No. 490)

No details yet.

Braunstein v. Commissioner (No. 476)

No details yet.

Burlington Truck Lines v. U.S. (No. 27)

No details yet.

Bus Employees v. Missouri (No. 604)

No details yet.

Bush v. Texas (No. 511)

No details yet.

Campbell v. United States (No. 631)

No details yet.

City Of Fresno v. California (No. 51)

No details yet.

Cleary v. Bolger (No. 57)

No details yet.

Colorado Comm'n v. Continental (No. 146)

No details yet.

Construction Laborers v. Curry (No. 87)

No details yet.

Dixilyn Corp. v. Crescent Co. (No. 297)

No details yet.

Douglas v. California (No. 34)

No details yet.

Downum v. United States (No. 489)

No details yet.

Draper v. Washington (No. 201)

No details yet.

Dugan v. Rank (No. 31)

No details yet.

Edwards v. South Carolina (No. 86)

No details yet.

F. P. C. v. Tennessee Gas Co. (No. 48)

No details yet.

Fay v. Noia (No. 84)

No details yet.

Federal Trade Comm'n v. Sun Oil Co. (No. 56)

No details yet.

Ferguson v. Skrupa (No. 111)

No details yet.

Fitzgerald v. United States Lines (No. 463)

No details yet.

Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul (No. 45)

No details yet.

Foman v. Davis (No. 41)

No details yet.

Ford v. Ford (No. 63)

No details yet.

Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. (No. 76)

No details yet.

Gastelum-Quinones v. Kennedy (No. 39)

No details yet.

Gideon v. Wainwright (No. 155)

No details yet.

Gilbertville Trucking Co. v. U.S. (No. 40)

No details yet.

Gober v. City Of Birmingham (No. 66)

No details yet.

Goss v. Board Of Education (No. 217)

No details yet.

Gray v. Sanders (No. 112)

No details yet.

Griffin v. Maryland (No. 6)

No details yet.

Gutierrez v. Waterman S. S. Corp. (No. 229)

No details yet.

Hawaii v. Gordon (No. 12 ORIG)

No details yet.

Haynes v. Washington (No. 147)

No details yet.

Head v. New Mexico Board (No. 392)

No details yet.

Hewitt-Robins v. Freight-Ways (No. 37)

No details yet.

I. C. C. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (No. 108)

Did the Kansas regulation of debt adjusting violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

No. The Court reversed the decision of the lower court and affirmed Kansas's right to regulate debt adjusting. The unanimous decision held that the question of whether the law was wise or reasonable was a legislative and not a judicial one. Justice Black argued that the lower court's ruling relied on old law; the Court had moved out of the business of using the "vague contours" of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down laws which it had deemed economically unwise. Those were issues for state and national legislatures to address and not the courts. As long as state regulations do not offend a "specific federal constitutional prohibition" or a "valid federal law," they are legitimate.

Incres S. S. Co. v. Maritime Workers (No. 33)

No details yet.

Iron Workers v. Perko (No. 482)

No details yet.

Jacobellis v. Ohio (No. 11)

Did the Pennsylvania law and Abington's policy, requiring public school students to participate in classroom religious exercises, violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

The Court found such a violation. The required activities encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be so." Furthermore, argued Justice Clark, the ability of a parent to excuse a child from these ceremonies by a written note was irrelevant since it did not prevent the school's actions from violating the Establishment Clause.

Johnson v. Virginia (No. 715)

No details yet.

Jones v. Cunningham (No. 77)

No details yet.

Ker v. California (No. 53)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp. (No. 288)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. General Motors (No. 404)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Reliance Fuel Corp. (No. 88)

No details yet.

Lane v. Brown (No. 283)

No details yet.

Locomotive Engrs. v. L. & N. R. Co. (No. 94)

No details yet.

Lombard v. Louisiana (No. 58)

No details yet.

Lopez v. United States (No. 236)

No details yet.

Lynumn v. Illinois (No. 9)

No details yet.

Machinists v. Central Airlines (No. 61)

No details yet.

Maximov v. United States (No. 240)

No details yet.

Mcculloch v. Sociedad Nacional (No. 107)

No details yet.

Mcneese v. Board Of Education (No. 480)

No details yet.

Meat Drivers v. United States (No. 38)

No details yet.

Moseley v. Electronic Facilities (No. 401)

Did ordering five Negro patrons to leave a private amusement park, and arresting them for criminal trespass when they refused, violate their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes. The Court held that the arresting deputy, despite working as a private park employee at the time, possessed and acted under state authority, imputing responsibility for his actions to Maryland. Therefore, to the extent that he sought to enforce a private policy of racial discrimination, the state of Maryland must be charged with racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Namet v. United States (No. 134)

No details yet.

New Jersey v. New York, S. & W. R. Co. (No. 104)

No details yet.

Northern Gas Co. v. Kansas Comm'n (No. 62)

No details yet.

Norvell v. Illinois (No. 513)

No details yet.

Pan American World Airways v. U.S. (No. 23)

No details yet.

Paul v. United States (No. 19)

No details yet.

Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co. (No. 78)

No details yet.

Peterson v. City Of Greenville (No. 71)

No details yet.

Plumbers' Union v. Borden (No. 541)

No details yet.

Railway Clerks v. Allen (No. 316)

No details yet.

Reed v. The Yaka (No. 509)

No details yet.

Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn (No. 368)

No details yet.

Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn (No. 13)

No details yet.

Rideau v. Louisiana (No. 630)

No details yet.

Rosenberg v. Fleuti (No. 248)

No details yet.

Sanders v. United States (No. 202)

No details yet.

Schlude v. Commissioner (No. 80)

No details yet.

Schneider v. Rusk (No. 251)

No details yet.

Schroeder v. City Of New York (No. 75)

No details yet.

Shenker v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. (No. 414)

No details yet.

Sherbert v. Verner (No. 526)

No details yet.

Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States (No. 16)

No details yet.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (No. 67)

No details yet.

Silver v. New York Stock Exchange (No. 150)

No details yet.

Simler v. Conner (No. 59)

No details yet.

Smith v. Evening News Assn. (No. 13)

Did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."

Smith v. Mississippi (No. 667)

No details yet.

Southern Const. Co. v. Pickard (No. 46)

No details yet.

Sperry v. Florida (No. 322)

No details yet.

Townsend v. Sain (No. 8)

No details yet.

Truck Drivers Union v. Riss & Co. (No. 180)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Georgia Pub. Ser v. Comm'n. (No. 81)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank (No. 83)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Pioneer American Ins. Co. (No. 405)

No details yet.

United States v. Bianchi & Co. (No. 529)

No details yet.

United States v. Braverman (No. 506)

No details yet.

United States v. Buffalo Sa v. Bank (No. 96)

No details yet.

United States v. Gilmore (No. 21)

No details yet.

United States v. Loew's Inc. (No. 42)

No details yet.

United States v. Muniz (No. 464)

No details yet.

United States v. Sampson (No. 69)

No details yet.

United States v. Singer Mfg. Co. (No. 438)

No details yet.

Utah Tax Comm'n v. Pacific Pipe Co. (No. 178)

No details yet.

Watson v. Memphis (No. 424)

No details yet.

Weyerhaeuser S. S. Co. v. U.S. (No. 65)

No details yet.

Wheeldin v. Wheeler (No. 493)

No details yet.

Whipple v. Commissioner (No. 305)

No details yet.

White Motor Co. v. United States (No. 54)

No details yet.

White v. Maryland (No. 600)

No details yet.

Williams v. Zuckert (No. 133)

No details yet.

Willner v. Committee On Character (No. 140)

No details yet.

Wisconsin v. Fed. Power Comm'n. (No. 72)

No details yet.

Wolf v. Weinstein (No. 70)

No details yet.

Wong Sun v. United States (No. 36)

Did ordering five Negro patrons to leave a private amusement park, and arresting them for criminal trespass when they refused, violate their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment?

Wright v. Georgia (No. 68)

No details yet.

Yellin v. United States (No. 35)

No details yet.