The Oyez Project: 1967 Term

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)

Gary Duncan, a black teenager in Louisiana, was found guilty of assaulting a white youth by allegedly slapping him on the elbow. Duncan was sentenced to 60 days in prison and fined $150. Duncan's request for a jury trial was denied.

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)

Florence Flast and a group of taxpayers challenged federal legislation that financed the purchase of secular textbooks for use in religious schools. Flast argued that such use of tax money violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A district court held that the federal courts should defer when confronted with taxpayer suits directed against federal spending programs.

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)

Jones, a black man, charged that a real estate company in Missouri's St. Louis County refused to sell him a home in a particular neighborhood on account of his race.

Katz v. United States (No. 35)

Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal, Katz challanged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari.

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)

Thompson was a pregnant, nineteen-year-old mother of one child who applied for assistance under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in Connecticut after having recently moved there from Massachusetts. Connecticut denied her aid since she did not satisfy the state's one-year residency requirement. This case was decided together with Washington v. Legrant and Reynolds v. Smith. In Washington, three people applied for and were denied AFDC aid on the ground that they had not resided in the District of Columbia for one year immediately preceding the filing of their application In Reynolds, two appellees, Smith and Foster, were denied AFDC aid on the sole ground that they had not been residents of Pennsylvania for at least a year prior to their applications as required by a Pennsylvania Welfare Code.

Sibron v. New York (No. 63)

After following Nelson Sibron for several hours, and observing him talking with several narcotics addicts, NYC police officer Anthony Martinez stopped Sibron and questioned him. When Martinez said: "You know what I am after," Sibron began reaching into his pocket. Simultaneously, Martinez thrust his hand into Sibron's pocket and pulled out several heroin envelopes. Following his arrest for drug trafficking, Sibron sought to suppress the heroin evidence as the product of an unconstitutional stop-and-frisk search. When the Criminal Court of New York City denied his motion, Sibron appealed but suffered adverse rulings in the New York State appellate courts. On appeal, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard Sibron's case together with a related case, Peters v. New York. John Peters appealed his arrest and conviction for intent to commit burglary after a stop-and-frisk search of his person revealed burglary 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)

Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail.

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)

David O'Brien burned his draft card at a Boston courthouse. He said he was expressing his opposition to war. He was convicted under a federal law that made the destruction or mutilation of drafts card a crime.

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)

On October 12, 1964, Wainwright, a student at Tulane University Law School, was out walking around midnight. Two New Orleans Police Department officers stopped him because, in their opinion, he fitted the description of a man suspected of murder. Wainwright told the officers he had identification at home, but not on his person. The officers then asked Wainwright to remove this jacket so that they could search him for a tattoo that the suspected murdered had on his left arm. Wainwright ultimately refused to do so after trying to walk away and some mild verbal sparing. The officers then arrested him on a charge of vagrancy by loitering and frisked him. After Wainwright continued to refuse to remove his jacket at the police station, officers used force to remove it and discovered that he had no tattoo.

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)

Witherspoon was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a jury in Illinois. An Illinois statute provides grounds for the dismissal of any juror with "conscientious scruples" against capital punishment. At Witherspoon's trial, the prosecution eliminated nearly half of the prospective jurors with qualms about capital punishment. The prosecution did not find out if most of the jurors dismissed would necessarily vote against capital punishment.

Witherspoon appealed, alleging that the dismissal of prospective jurors with qualms about capital punishment violated his Sixth Amendment right to an "impartial jury" and 14th Amendment right to due process. On appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court found that no constitutional violation took place.

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.