The Oyez Project: 1964 Term

Abernathy v. Alabama (No. 9)

No details yet.

All States Frgt. v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co. (No. 22)

No details yet.

American Committee v. Sacb (No. 44)

No details yet.

American Oil Co. v. Neill (No. 19)

No details yet.

American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board (No. 255)

No details yet.

Angelet v. Fay (No. 578)

No details yet.

Armstrong v. Manzo (No. 149)

No details yet.

Atlantic Rfg. Co. v. Ftc. (No. 292)

No details yet.

Beck v. Ohio (No. 18)

No details yet.

Brigade Veterans v. Sacb (No. 65)

No details yet.

Brotherhood, Ry. & Steamship Clerks, v. United Air Lines (No. 31)

No details yet.

Brulotte v. Thys Co. (No. 20)

No details yet.

Burnett v. New York Central R. Co. (No. 437)

No details yet.

Calhoon v. Harvey (No. 17)

No details yet.

California v. Lo-Vaca Co. (No. 46)

No details yet.

Cameron v. Johnson (No. 587 MISC)

No details yet.

Carrington v. Rash (No. 82)

No details yet.

Case v. Nebraska (No. 843)

No details yet.

Chicago & N.W. R.W. v. Chicago Mil. St. Paul & Pac. R. (No. 21)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Brown (No. 63)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Noel Estate (No. 503)

No details yet.

Corbett v. Stergios (No. 179)

No details yet.

Cox v. Louisiana (No. 49)

No details yet.

Cox v. Louisiana (No. 24)

No details yet.

Crider v. Zurich Ins. Co. (No. 116)

No details yet.

Dixon v. United States (No. 486)

No details yet.

Dombrowski v. Pfister (No. 52)

No details yet.

Douglas v. Alabama (No. 313)

No details yet.

El Paso v. Simmons (No. 38)

No details yet.

Estes v. Texas (No. 256)

No details yet.

Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co. (No. 32)

No details yet.

FCC v. Schreiber (No. 482)

No details yet.

Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board (No. 14)

No details yet.

Fortson v. Dorsey (No. 178)

No details yet.

Fortson v. Toombs (No. 300)

No details yet.

FPC v. Union Electric Co. (No. 123)

No details yet.

Freedman v. Maryland (No. 69)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (No. 62)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Consolidated Foods (No. 422)

No details yet.

Gen. Motors v. District Of Columbia (No. 352)

Maryland required that all films be submitted to a board of censors before being exhibited. The board could disapprove films that were obscene, debased or corrupted morals, or tended to incite crime. There was no time limit on the decision-making process. Ronald Freedman challenged the law as unconstitutional due to the procedures to obtain approval. He did not suggest that prior approval itself was unconstitutional.

Gillespie v. U.S. Steel Corp. (No. 10)

No details yet.

Griffin v. California (No. 202)

No details yet.

Griswold v. Connecticut (No. 496)

No details yet.

Hamm v. Rock Hill (No. 2)

No details yet.

Hanna v. Plumer (No. 171)

No details yet.

Harman v. Forssenius (No. 360)

No details yet.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (No. 515)

No details yet.

Henry v. Mississippi (No. 6)

No details yet.

Holt v. Virginia (No. 464)

No details yet.

Hughes Tool Co. v. TWA (No. 443)

No details yet.

Hughes Tool Co. v. TWA (No. 501)

No details yet.

Independent Petroleum Workers, America, v. American Oil (No. 55)

No details yet.

Jaben v. United States (No. 347)

No details yet.

Jankovich v. Toll Road Comm'n (No. 60)

No details yet.

Jenkins v. United States (No. 761)

No details yet.

Katzenbach v. McClung (No. 543)

No details yet.

King v. United States (No. 16)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Brown (No. 7)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Burnup & Sims (No. 15)

On the morning of December 15, 1961, Elton Cox led a some 2000 students on an anti-discrimination march that ended in a large assembly before the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, courthouse building. Following police instructions, the demonstrators confined themselves to the west side of the street so as not to interfere with traffic. As the lunch hour neared, Cox encouraged the demonstrators to seek service at any one of several near-by segregated lunch counters. Upon hearing this, the police urged the crowd to disband and began pushing them away from the courthouse. When the demonstrators resisted, police showered them with tear gas and chased them away. The following day, Louisiana police arrested and charged Cox with "disturbing the peace." On appeal from the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision upholding an adverse district court ruling, the Supreme Court granted Cox certiorari.

Labor Board v. Metropolitan Ins. Co. (No. 98)

No details yet.

Lamont v. Postmaster General (No. 491)

No details yet.

Linkletter v. Walker (No. 95)

No details yet.

Louisiana v. United States (No. 67)

No details yet.

Maryland v. United States (No. 345)

No details yet.

Mckinnie v. Tennessee (No. 148)

No details yet.

Mclaughlin v. Florida (No. 11)

No details yet.

Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea (No. 240)

No details yet.

Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner (No. 111)

No details yet.

Mine Workers v. Pennington (No. 48)

No details yet.

Minnesota Mining v. N. J. Wood Co. (No. 291)

No details yet.

Musicians Federation v. Wittstein (No. 27)

No details yet.

O'keeffe v. Smith Associates (No. 307)

No details yet.

Paragon Coal Co. v. Commissioner (No. 134)

No details yet.

Parrot v. Tallahassee (No. 958)

No details yet.

Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania (No. 294)

No details yet.

Pointer v. Texas (No. 577)

No details yet.

Radio Union v. Broadcast Ser (No. 61)

No details yet.

Railway Clerks v. Employees Assn. (No. 138)

No details yet.

Republic Steel v. Maddox (No. 43)

No details yet.

Reserve Life Insurance Co. v. Bowers (No. 96)

No details yet.

Ryan v. United States (No. 12)

No details yet.

Sansone v. United States (No. 365)

No details yet.

Schlagenhauf v. Holder (No. 8)

No details yet.

Sec v. American Trailer Rentals (No. 35)

No details yet.

Simons v. Miami Beach Nat. Bank (No. 363)

No details yet.

Singer v. United States (No. 42)

No details yet.

Stanford v. Texas (No. 40)

No details yet.

Susser v. Carvel Corp. (No. 355)

No details yet.

Swain v. Alabama (No. 64)

No details yet.

Texas v. New Jersey (No. 13 ORIG)

No details yet.

Textile Workers v. Darlington Co. (No. 37)

No details yet.

Turner v. Louisiana (No. 53)

No details yet.

U.S. v. First Nat. City Bank (No. 59)

No details yet.

Udall v. Tallman (No. 34)

No details yet.

United Gas Co. v. Continental Oil Co. (No. 644)

No details yet.

United States v. Atlas Ins. Co. (No. 489)

No details yet.

United States v. Boston & M. R. Co. (No. 232)

Since the late 19th century, Texas sold land to facilitate settlement in the state and construction of schools. If, however, a purchaser missed an interest payment on the property, the land was immediately forfeited back to the state unless the owner made the payment before the land could be re-sold. Under this program, Greenbury Simmons purchased and then forfeited some land in 1947. Just over five years later he offered to pay the interest to re-acquire the property. The state refused to comply with his wishes citing a 1941 amendment to its law which gave individuals five years to claim their forfeited land. Simmons's land was sold to the City of El Paso in 1955.

United States v. Brown (No. 399)

No details yet.

United States v. California (No. 5 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Gainey (No. 13)

No details yet.

United States v. Midland-Ross Corp. (No. 628)

No details yet.

United States v. Mississippi (No. 73)

No details yet.

United States v. Powell (No. 54)

No details yet.

United States v. Seeger (No. 50)

No details yet.

United States v. Ventresca (No. 28)

No details yet.

Warren Trading Post v. Tax Comm'n (No. 115)

No details yet.

Waterman S. S. Corp. v. U.S. (No. 245)

No details yet.

Whitney Bank v. New Orleans Bank (No. 26)

No details yet.

Zemel v. Rusk (No. 86)

No details yet.