The Oyez Project: 1969 Term Decisions

Adickes v. Kress & Co. (No. 79)

No details yet.

Alexander v. Board Of Education (No. 632)

No details yet.

American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service (No. 369)

No details yet.

Anderson's-Black Rock v. Pavement Co. (No. 45)

No details yet.

Arkansas v. Tennessee (No. 33 ORIG)

No details yet.

Ashe v. Swenson (No. 57)

No details yet.

Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Engineers (No. 477)

No details yet.

Bachellar v. Maryland (No. 729)

No details yet.

Baird v. State Bar Of Arizona (No. 15)

No details yet.

Baldwin v. New York (No. 188)

No details yet.

Barlow v. Collins (No. 249)

No details yet.

Boddie v. Connecticut (No. 27)

No details yet.

Boys Markets v. Clerks Union (No. 768)

No details yet.

Brady v. U. S. (No. 270)

No details yet.

Breen v. Selective Service Board (No. 65)

No details yet.

Brockington v. Rhodes (No. 31)

No details yet.

Bryson v. United States (No. 35)

No details yet.

Byrne v. Karalexis (No. 83)

No details yet.

California v. Green (No. 387)

No details yet.

Carter v. Jury Commission (No. 30)

No details yet.

Chambers v. Maroney (No. 830)

No details yet.

Chandler v. Judicial Council (No. 2 MISC)

No details yet.

Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma (No. 41)

No details yet.

City Of Chicago v. United States (No. 101)

No details yet.

Coleman v. Alabama (No. 72)

No details yet.

Colonnade Corp. v. United States (No. 108)

No details yet.

Conway v. Adult Authority (No. 40)

No details yet.

Czosek v. O'mara (No. 234)

No details yet.

Dandridge v. Williams (No. 131)

No details yet.

Data Processing Service v. Camp (No. 85)

No details yet.

Debacker v. Brainard (No. 15)

No details yet.

Dickey v. Florida (No. 728)

No details yet.

Dutton v. Evans (No. 10)

No details yet.

Dyson v. Stein (No. 41)

No details yet.

Evans v. Abney (No. 60)

No details yet.

Evans v. Cornman (No. 236)

No details yet.

First National Bank v. Dickinson (No. 19)

No details yet.

Goldberg v. Kelly (No. 62)

Does a state's termination of public aid, without affording the beneficiary a hearing prior to termination, violate notions of procedural due process as set out in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Yes. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that states must afford public aid recipients a pre-termination evidentiary hearing before discontinuing their aid. Noting that welfare benefits are statutory entitlements, rather than "privileges," the Court weighed welfare recipients' need for procedural due process against the competing considerations of the possible harm they might suffer from discontinuation and the government's interest in summary adjudication. The Court concluded that state interests in conserving administrative costs are not sufficient to override public aid recipients' interest in procedural due process. With respect to New York's newly implemented hearings, the Court found them deficient insofar as they did not permit recipients to present evidence, be heard orally in person or through counsel, or cross-examine adverse witnesses.

Goldstein v. Cox (No. 66)

No details yet.

Greenbelt Pub. Assn. v. Bresler (No. 413)

No details yet.

Gutknecht v. United States (No. 71)

No details yet.

Hadley v. Junior College District (No. 37)

No details yet.

Hall v. Beals (No. 39)

No details yet.

Hellenic Lines v. Rhoditis (No. 661)

No details yet.

Hester v. Illinois (No. 82)

No details yet.

Hill v. California (No. 51)

No details yet.

Illinois v. Allen (No. 606)

No details yet.

In Re Spencer (No. 513)

No details yet.

In Re Stolar (No. 18)

No details yet.

In re Winship (No. 778)

Does the requirement that juvenile convictions rest on "preponderance of the evidence" burden of proof, as opposed to that stricter "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Yes. In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court found that when establishing guilt of criminal charges the strict "reasonable-doubt" standard must be applied to both adults and juveniles alike. The Court noted that by establishing guilt based only on a "preponderance of the evidence," as is customary in civil cases, courts were denying criminal defendants a fundamental constitutional safeguard against the possibility that their fate be incorrectly decided due to fact-finding errors. The Court concluded that mere variations in age among criminal defendants will not suffice to warrant the use of different burdens of proof so long as they all face loss of liberty as a possible sentence.

Jones v. Board Of Education (No. 731)

No details yet.

Lewis v. Martin (No. 829)

No details yet.

Longshoremen v. Ariadne Co. (No. 231)

No details yet.

Mcmann v. Richardson (No. 153)

No details yet.

Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite (No. 64)

No details yet.

Minor v. United States (No. 189)

No details yet.

Mitchell v. Donovan (No. 726)

No details yet.

Monks v. New Jersey (No. 127)

No details yet.

Moon v. Maryland (No. 267)

No details yet.

Moragne v. States Marine Lines (No. 175)

No details yet.

Morales v. New York (No. 86)

No details yet.

Morris v. Schoonfield (No. 782)

No details yet.

Mulloy v. United States (No. 655)

No details yet.

Nash v. United States (No. 678)

No details yet.

Nelson v. George (No. 595)

No details yet.

New Haven Inclusion Cases (No. 915)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Raytheon Co. (No. 440)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co. (No. 32)

No details yet.

North Carolina v. Alford (No. 14)

No details yet.

Parker v. North Carolina (No. 268)

No details yet.

Phoenix v. Kolodziejski (No. 1066)

No details yet.

Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (No. 301)

No details yet.

Porter Co. v. NLRB (No. 230)

No details yet.

Price v. Georgia (No. 269)

No details yet.

Reetz v. Bozanich (No. 185)

No details yet.

Rogers v. Bellei (No. 24)

No details yet.

Rosado v. Wyman (No. 540)

No details yet.

Ross v. Bernhard (No. 42)

No details yet.

Rowan v. U. S. Post Office Dept. (No. 399)

No details yet.

Sanks v. Georgia (No. 28)

No details yet.

Schacht v. United States (No. 628)

No details yet.

Sears, Roebuck v. Carpet Layers (No. 476)

No details yet.

Shore Line v. Transportation Union (No. 29)

No details yet.

Simmons v. West Haven Housing (No. 81)

No details yet.

Standard Industries, Inc. v. Tigrett Industries, Inc. (No. 445)

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park (No. 33)

No details yet.

Taggart v. Weinacker's, Inc. (No. 74)

No details yet.

Tooahnippah v. Hickel (No. 300)

No details yet.

Toussie v. United States (No. 441)

No details yet.

Turner v. Fouche (No. 23)

No details yet.

Turner v. United States (No. 190)

No details yet.

U. S. v. Sisson (No. 305)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Phillipsburg Nat. Bank (No. 1093)

No details yet.

United States v. Armour & Co. (No. 103)

No details yet.

United States v. Davis (No. 282)

No details yet.

United States v. Estate Of Donnelly (No. 104)

No details yet.

United States v. Hilton Hotels (No. 528)

No details yet.

United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (No. 28)

No details yet.

United States v. Jorn (No. 19)

No details yet.

United States v. Key (No. 402)

No details yet.

United States v. Knox (No. 17)

No details yet.

United States v. Kordel (No. 87)

No details yet.

United States v. Reynolds (No. 88)

No details yet.

United States v. Seckinger (No. 395)

No details yet.

United States v. Van Leeuwen (No. 403)

No details yet.

United States v. Webb, Inc. (No. 63)

No details yet.

United States v. White (No. 13)

No details yet.

Vale v. Louisiana (No. 727)

No details yet.

Wade v. Wilson (No. 55)

No details yet.

Waller v. Florida (No. 24)

No details yet.

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (No. 135)

Did the property tax exemptions violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that the exemptions did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court held that the purpose of the exemptions was to neither advance nor inhibit religion; no one particular church or religious group had been singled out to receive tax exempt status. Unlike direct subsidies, which would have unduly entangled the state with religion, tax exemptions created only "minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches." The Court noted that "benevolent neutrality" toward churches and religions was "deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life."

Welsh v. United States (No. 76)

No details yet.

Wheeler v. Montgomery (No. 14)

No details yet.

Williams v. Florida (No. 927)

Did a trial by jury of less than 12 persons violate the Sixth Amendment?

The Court held that "the 12-man [jury] requirement cannot be regarded as an indispensable component of the Sixth Amendment." The Court found that the purpose of the jury trial was "to prevent oppression by the Government," and that the performance of this role was not dependent on the particular number of people on the jury. The Court concluded that "the fact that the jury at common law was composed of precisely 12 is a historical accident, unnecessary to effect the purposes of the jury system and wholly without significance 'except to mystics.'"

Williams v. Illinois (No. 1089)

No details yet.

Woodward v. Commissioner (No. 412)

No details yet.

Wyman v. Rothstein (No. 896)

No details yet.

Zuber v. Allen (No. 25)

No details yet.