The Oyez Project: 1967 Term Decisions

Agricultural Bank v. Tax Comm'n (No. 755)

No details yet.

Albrecht v. Herald Co. (No. 43)

No details yet.

Alderman v. United States (No. 133)

No details yet.

Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, v. Lisi (No. 70)

No details yet.

American Lines v. L. & N. R. Co. (No. 797)

No details yet.

Anderson v. Johnson (No. 700)

No details yet.

Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge 735 (No. 445)

No details yet.

Avery v. Midland County (No. 39)

No details yet.

Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers (No. 59)

No details yet.

Barber v. Page (No. 703)

No details yet.

Biggers v. Tennessee (No. 237)

No details yet.

Bloom v. Illinois (No. 52)

No details yet.

Board Of Education v. Allen (No. 660)

No details yet.

Bruton v. United States (No. 705)

No details yet.

Bumper v. North Carolina (No. 1016)

No details yet.

Burgett v. Texas (No. 53)

No details yet.

Cameron v. Johnson (No. 699)

No details yet.

Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid (No. 673)

No details yet.

Carafas v. Lavallee (No. 71)

No details yet.

Case-Swayne Co. v. Sunkist Growers (No. 66)

No details yet.

Cheng Fan Kwok v. Immigration Ser (No. 638)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Gordon (No. 760)

No details yet.

Duncan v. Louisiana (No. 410)

Was the State of Louisiana obligated to provide a trial by jury in criminal cases such as Duncan's?

Yes. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of trial by jury in criminal cases was "fundamental to the American scheme of justice," and that the states were obligated under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide such trials. Petty crimes, defined as those punishable by no more than six months in prison and a $500 fine, were not subject to the jury trial provision.

Dyke v. Taylor Implement Co. (No. 149)

No details yet.

Edwards v. Pacific Fruit Express Co. (No. 465)

No details yet.

Federation Of Musicians v. Carroll (No. 309)

No details yet.

First Nat. Bank v. Cities Service (No. 23)

No details yet.

Flast v. Cohen (No. 416)

Did Flast, as a taxpayer, have standing to sue the government's spending program?

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court rejected the government's argument that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers barred taxpayer suits against federal taxing and spending programs. In order to prove a "requisite personal stake" in such cases, taxpayers had to 1) establish a logical link between their status as taxpayers and the type of legislative enactment attacked, and 2) show the challenged enactment exceeded specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of Congressional taxing and spending power. The Court held that Flast had met both parts of the test.

Fmc v. Svenska Amerika Linien (No. 257)

No details yet.

Food Employees v. Logan Plaza (No. 478)

No details yet.

Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists (No. 618)

No details yet.

FPC v. Sunray Dx Oil Co. (No. 60)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Flotill Products (No. 20)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Fred Meyer, Inc. (No. 27)

No details yet.

Gardner v. Broderick (No. 635)

No details yet.

Ginsberg v. New York (No. 47)

No details yet.

Glona v. American Guarantee Co. (No. 639)

No details yet.

Green v. County School Board (No. 695)

No details yet.

Hanner v. Demarcus (No. 497)

No details yet.

Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Mach. (No. 335)

No details yet.

Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co. (No. 40)

No details yet.

Harris v. United States (No. 92)

No details yet.

Harrison v. United States (No. 876)

No details yet.

Haynes v. United States (No. 236)

No details yet.

Hopkins v. Cohen (No. 276)

No details yet.

Hughes v. Washington (No. 15)

No details yet.

In Re Ruffalo (No. 73)

No details yet.

In Re Whittington (No. 701)

No details yet.

Interstate Circuit v. Dallas (No. 56)

No details yet.

Johnson v. Massachusetts (No. 702)

No details yet.

Joint Industry Board v. U.S. (No. 616)

No details yet.

Jones v. Mayer (No. 645)

Did the defendant violate 42 U.S.C. Section 1982 which guarantees equal rights to all citizens making real estate transactions?

The Court sided with Jones and held that Section 1982 of the congressional act was intended to prohibit all discrimination against blacks in the sale and rental of property, including governmental and private discrimination. Furthermore, the Thirteenth Amendment's enforcement section empowered Congress to eliminate racial barriers to the acquisition of property since those barriers constituted "badges and incidents of slavery."

Katz v. United States (No. 35)

Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?

Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court. A concurring opinion by John Marshall Harlan introduced the idea of a 'reasonable' expectation of Fourth Amendment protection.

King v. Smith (No. 949)

No details yet.

Lee v. Florida (No. 174)

No details yet.

Lee v. Washington (No. 75)

No details yet.

Levy v. Louisiana (No. 508)

No details yet.

Longshoremen v. Marine Trade Assn. (No. 34)

No details yet.

Mancusi v. Deforte (No. 844)

No details yet.

Maryland v. Wirtz (No. 742)

No details yet.

Massachusetts v. Painten (No. 37)

No details yet.

Mathis v. United States (No. 726)

No details yet.

Mempa v. Rhay (No. 16)

No details yet.

Menominee Tribe v. United States (No. 187)

No details yet.

Miller v. California (No. 154)

No details yet.

Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn. (No. 33)

No details yet.

Monroe v. Board Of Commissioners (No. 740)

No details yet.

Nash v. Florida Industrial Comm'n (No. 48)

No details yet.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises (No. 339)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co. (No. 49)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Marine Workers (No. 611)

No details yet.

NLRB v. United Insurance Co. (No. 178)

No details yet.

Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Tax Comm'n. (No. 324)

No details yet.

Penn-Central Merger Cases (No. 433)

No details yet.

Peoria Tribe v. United States (No. 219)

No details yet.

Perma Mufflers v. Int'l Parts Corp. (No. 733)

No details yet.

Permian Basin Area Rate Cases (No. 90)

No details yet.

Peyton v. Rowe (No. 802)

No details yet.

Pickering v. Board Of Education (No. 510)

No details yet.

Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Co. (No. 65)

No details yet.

Powell v. Texas (No. 405)

No details yet.

Protective Committee v. Anderson (No. 38)

No details yet.

Provident Bank v. Patterson (No. 28)

No details yet.

Puyallup Tribe v. Dept. Of Game (No. 247)

No details yet.

Raney v. Board Of Education (No. 805)

No details yet.

Reading Co. v. Brown (No. 127)

No details yet.

Sabbath v. United States (No. 898)

No details yet.

Sanitation Men v. Sanitation Comm'r (No. 823)

No details yet.

Schneider v. Smith (No. 196)

No details yet.

SEC v. New England Elec. System (No. 305)

No details yet.

Shapiro v. Thompson (No. 9)

Does the conditioning of AFDC aid on various residency requirements violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Yes. The Court held that since the regulation touched "on the fundamental right of interstate movement," it must promote a compelling state interest. Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC, all failed to advance any compelling administrative or social reasons for their requirements. The goal of simply preventing indigents from moving to these states was constitutionally impermissible, argued Justice Brennan, given the value the United States has historically placed on the freedom to travel.

Sibron v. New York (No. 63)

Do the broad search powers conferred on New York State police officers under the State's "stop-and-frisk" law violate the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections?

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court began by noting that although states may grant police officers great latitude in making arrests, all search and seizures are subject to constitutional limitations. In Sibron's case, the Court noted that officer Martinez never actually heard any of the conversations between Sibron and the narcotics addicts. As such, the inference that Sibron engaged in narcotics trafficking merely because he spoke with drug addicts did not constitute probably cause for a warrantless search. Moreover, Martinez's actions could not be justified as a self-protective search for weapons since he admitted that he had no reason to suspect Sibron of concealment. With respect to Peters, the Court upheld his conviction since it flowed from a lawful stop-and-frisk search. The arresting officer observed Peters prowling furtively in a building hallway and had to chase him down before capture. Such suspicious conduct justified the ensuing stop-and-frisk search of Peter's person that, in turn, revealed the incriminating burglar tools.

Simmons v. United States (No. 55)

No details yet.

Sims v. Georgia (No. 678)

No details yet.

Smith v. Illinois (No. 158)

No details yet.

Snohomish County v. Seattle Disposal Company (No. 548)

No details yet.

St. Amant v. Thompson (No. 517)

No details yet.

Stern v. South Chester Tube Co. (No. 486)

No details yet.

Tcherepnin v. Knight (No. 104)

No details yet.

Terry v. Ohio (No. 67)

Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation.

U.S. v. Southwestern Cable Co. (No. 363)

No details yet.

Umans v. United States (No. 41)

No details yet.

United States v. Coleman (No. 630)

No details yet.

United States v. Correll (No. 113)

No details yet.

United States v. Habig (No. 107)

No details yet.

United States v. Jackson (No. 85)

No details yet.

United States v. Johnson (No. 482)

No details yet.

United States v. Louisiana (No. 9 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Neifert-White Co. (No. 267)

No details yet.

United States v. O'Brien (No. 232)

Was the law an unconstitutional infringement of O'Brien's freedom of speech?

No. The 7-to-1 majority, speaking through Chief Justice Earl Warren, established a test to determine whether governmental regulation involving symbolic speech was justified. The formula examines whether the regulation is unrelated to content and narrowly tailored to achieve the government's interest. "[W]e think it clear," wrote Warren," that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidential restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest."

United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Co. (No. 26)

No details yet.

United States v. Rands (No. 54)

No details yet.

United States v. Third Nat. Bank (No. 86)

No details yet.

United States v. United Shoe Corp. (No. 597)

No details yet.

Volkswagenwerk v. Fmc (No. 69)

No details yet.

Wainwright v. City of New Orleans (No. 13)

Must a person who is unconstitutionally arrested submit to a search of his person? May he offer token resistance?

In a per curiam opinion, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

Watts v. Seward School Board (No. 325)

No details yet.

Whitehill v. Elkins (No. 25)

No details yet.

Whitney v. Florida (No. 68)

No details yet.

Will v. United States (No. 36)

No details yet.

Wirtz v. Bottle Blowers Assn. (No. 57)

No details yet.

Wirtz v. Hotel Employees (No. 891)

No details yet.

Wirtz v. Laborers' Union (No. 58)

No details yet.

Witherspoon v. Illinois (No. 1015)

Does a state statue that provides grounds for the dismissal of any juror with "conscientious scruples" against capital punishment violate the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of an "impartial jury" and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process?

Yes. In an opinion delivered by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court held 6-3 that Witherspoon's death sentence was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that a jury composed after the dismissal of all who oppose the death sentence was biased in favor the death sentence; such a jury was not impartial and thus violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held that while jurors who say they will not impose the death sentence can be dismissed, jurors who simply oppose the death sentence as a personal belief may not. Justice William Douglas, concurring, argued that it also unconstitutional to dismiss prospective jurors who say they will never impose the death sentence.

Justice Hugo Black, with whom Justices John Harlan and Byron White joined, dissented. Douglas argued that the Constitution allows the dismissal of all jurors who oppose the death penalty personally, because they will be necessarily biased against the death penalty. In a separate dissent, White argued that the Illinois legislature was allowed to exclude "those with doubts" about "one of the punishments among which the legislature sought to have them choose...."

Wyandotte Co. v. United States (No. 31)

No details yet.

Zschernig v. Miller (No. 21)

No details yet.

Zwickler v. Koota (No. 29)

No details yet.