Cases - 1961 term

Teamsters v. Yellow Transit

Wed, 11 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Teamsters

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yellow Transit

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 711 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1961

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Teamsters, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Oyler v. Boles

Mon, 04 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Oyler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Boles

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 57

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 448 (1962)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1961

Decided

Monday, February 19, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Boles, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Western Union Co. v. Pennsylvania

Thu, 12 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Western Union Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 71 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, October 12, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 4, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Western Union Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Malone v. Bowdoin

Tue, 20 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

113

Petitioner

Malone

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bowdoin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 643 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Malone, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Coppedge v. United States

Tue, 12 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

157

Petitioner

Coppedge

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 438 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, December 12, 1961

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Coppedge, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Chewning v. Cunningham

Mon, 04 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Chewning

Respondent

Cunningham

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 443 (1962)

Argued

December 4-5, 1961

Decided

Monday, February 19, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Chewning, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

California v. Fed. Power Comm'n

Thu, 01 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

187

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fed. Power Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 482 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, March 1, 1962

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Public Affairs Press v. Rickover

Mon, 06 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Public Affairs Press

Respondent

Rickover

Consolidation

No. 55

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 111 (1962)

Argued

November 6-7, 1961

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Public Affairs Press, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2201

None

Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney

Tue, 07 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Dowd Box Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Courtney

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 502 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1961

Decided

Monday, February 19, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Dowd Box Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Carnley v. Cochran

Tue, 20 Feb 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

158

Petitioner

Carnley

Respondent

Cochran

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 506 (1962)

Argued

February 20-21, 1962

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Carnley, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Langdeau

Tue, 27 Feb 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Langdeau

Respondent

Mercantile Nat. Bank

Consolidation

No. 15

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

371 U.S. 555 (1963)

Argued

February 27-28, 1962

Reargued:

Wednesday, December 5, 1962

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mercantile Nat. Bank, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 94

None

United States v. Borden Co.

Tue, 24 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Location

The Borden Company - Chicago Milk Division

3638 N. Broadway

Chicago, IL

United States

41° 56' 52.9476" N, 87° 38' 51.7596" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

439

Appellant

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Borden Co.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 460 (1962)

Argued

April 24-25, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Advocates

Richard A. Solomon (argued the cause for the United States)

Stuart S. Ball (argued the cause for The Borden Company)

John Paul Stevens (argued the cause for the Bowman Dairy Company)

Facts of the Case

The Borden Company and Bowman Dairy Company were both large distributors of milk products based in Chicago, Illinois. Each company sold dairy products to retail stores under a plan that gave independent stores discounts on the list prices based on the volume of the independent stores’ purchases, up to a specified maximum discount. The dairies granted grocery chain stores a flat discount, without reference to the volume of their purchases, at a rate substantially higher than the maximum discount available to independent grocery stores.

The government brought a Section 2(a) Clayton Act suit against The Borden Company and Bowman Dairy Company, seeking an injunction against selling milk products at prices which discriminated between the independent groceries and the chain groceries. Each company conducted its own cost study in an attempt to demonstrate that the differences in pricing between independent groceries and chain groceries were due to actual cost differences. The cost studies demonstrated that it was less costly on average to sell to chain stores. So, the dairy companies argued that the price discrimination was justified by the cost justification proviso of the Clayton Act.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the Government’s suit, concluding that the cost differences demonstrated by the two companies’ cost studies were sufficient to justify the price discrimination. The United States appealed the District Court’s decision.

Question

Under the Clayton Act, is it lawful to engage in price discrimination in favor of chain groceries and against independent groceries with a showing that sales to chains are less costly on average than sales to independents, but without showing why chains and independents should be treated as separate classes of purchasers?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

No, Justice Tom C. Clark, wrote the opinion of the Court reversing and remanding the lower court’s decision. Writing for himself and five other justices, Clark maintained that the cost studies submitted by the two dairy companies did not satisfy their burden of showing that their respective discriminatory pricing plans reflected only a due allowance for cost differences. Clark recognized that eliminating class pricing would be impractical, but emphasized that customer classifications could not be arbitrary and that members of a class must have such similarity as to make the averaging of the cost of dealing with the class a valid and reasonable indication of the cost of dealing with any specific member of the class. Since Borden and Bowman did not show sufficient homogeneity within the class of chain groceries or within the class of independent groceries, the price discrimination between the two classes was illegal under the Clayton Act.

Justice William O. Douglas voted with the majority and wrote a concurring opinion, which emphasized the purpose of the anti-trust acts. Douglas stated that the Clayton Act should be read in a way that preserves as much of traditional free enterprise as possible, by controlling practices such as unfair discounting, which could lead to unfair competitive advantage and monopoly.

Justice Marshall Harlan dissented. Harlan stated that the cost studies submitted to the district court were adequate under the accepted principles of the law in this field. He agreed with the District Court’s conclusion that the studies were conscientiously prepared and appeared to justify the price discrimination arising from the discount practices. As such, Harlan would have affirmed the lower court’s opinion.

Justice Felix Frankfurter took no part in this decision.

In Re Zipkin

Wed, 28 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

288

Petitioner

In Re Zipkin

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 400 (1962)

Argued

March 28-29, 1962

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for , 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Hodges v. United States

Mon, 13 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hodges

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 139 (1961)

Argued

Monday, November 13, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 4, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting

Mon, 13 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Poller

Respondent

Columbia Broadcasting

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 464 (1962)

Argued

November 13-14, 1961

Decided

Monday, February 19, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Poller, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co.

Mon, 23 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

532

Petitioner

Calbeck

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Travelers Insurance Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 114 (1962)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Calbeck, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

United Gas Co. v. Ideal Cement Co.

Wed, 13 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Ideal Cement Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United Gas Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 134 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, December 13, 1961

Decided

Monday, March 19, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United Gas Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1254

None

St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States

Thu, 09 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

St. Regis Paper Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 208 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, November 9, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Trade Commission

None

Wood v. Georgia

Thu, 29 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

369

Petitioner

Wood

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Georgia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 375 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, March 29, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Wood, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Beck v. Washington

Tue, 14 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Beck

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Washington

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 541 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, November 14, 1961

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Washington, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Lanza v. New York

Mon, 02 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

236

Petitioner

Lanza

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 139 (1962)

Argued

Monday, April 2, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for New York, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Central R. Co. v. Pennsylvania

Tue, 20 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

400

Appellee

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Central R. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 607 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Central R. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.

Tue, 10 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

464

Petitioner

Labor Bd.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Washington Aluminum Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 9 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, April 10, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 28, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Labor Bd., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Still v. Norfolk & Western R. Co.

Thu, 19 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Still

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Norfolk & Western R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 35 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, October 19, 1961

Decided

Monday, November 13, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Still, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Employers' Liability

None

Venus v. United States

Thu, 14 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Venus

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 345 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, December 14, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Venus, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Dairy Queen v. Wood

Mon, 19 Feb 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

244

Petitioner

Dairy Queen

Respondent

Wood

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 469 (1962)

Argued

February 19-20, 1962

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Dairy Queen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

I. C. C. v. J-T Transport Co.

Tue, 17 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

J-T Transport Co.

Respondent

I. C. C.

Consolidation

U.S. A. C. Transport, Inc., et al. v. J-T Transport Co., Inc., et al., No. 18

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. Reddish et al., No. 49

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Reddish et al., No. 53

Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., et al. v. Reddish et al., No. 54

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 81 (1961)

Argued

October 17-18, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 4, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for J-T Transport Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson

Wed, 18 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

434

Petitioner

Sinclair Refining Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Atkinson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 195 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Atkinson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Norris-LaGuardia

None

Sunkist v. Winckler & Smith Co.

Wed, 21 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

241

Petitioner

Sunkist

Respondent

Winckler & Smith Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 19 (1962)

Argued

March 21-22, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 28, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Sunkist, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Dibella v. United States

Tue, 16 Jan 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Dibella

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

United States v. Koenig, No. 93

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 121 (1962)

Argued

January 16-17, 1962

Decided

Monday, March 19, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Dibella, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Fed. Land Bank v. Kiowa County

Mon, 16 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Fed. Land Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kiowa County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 146 (1961)

Argued

Monday, October 16, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fed. Land Bank, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Robinson v. California

Tue, 17 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Place of arrest

West Pico Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90006

Los Angeles, CA 90006

United States

34° 2' 49.9092" N, 118° 18' 32.58" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

554

Appellee

California

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Robinson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 660 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Advocates

Samuel Carter McMorris (Argued the cause for the appellant)

William E. Doran (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

A California statute made it a criminal offense for a person to "be addicted to the use of narcotics." Lawrence Robinson was convicted under the law, which required a sentence of at least ninety days in jail. A state appellate court affirmed Robinson's conviction on appeal.

Question

Was the California law an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Robinson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court held that laws imprisoning persons afflicted with the "illness" of narcotic addiction inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court likened the law to one making it a criminal offense "to be mentally ill, or a leper, or to be afflicted with a venereal disease," and argued that the state could not punish persons merely because of their "status" of addiction. The Court noted that the law was not aimed at the purchase, sale, or possession of illegal drugs.

Russell v. United States

Wed, 06 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Russell

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

Shelton v. United States, No. 9

Whitman v. United States, No. 10

Liveright v. United States, No. 11

Price v. United States, No. 12

Gojack v. United States, No. 128

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 749 (1962)

Argued

December 6-7, 1961, December 11-12, 1961

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Russell, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 2 U.S.C. 192

None

Engel v. Vitale

Tue, 03 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Location

New Hyde Park-Garden City Park School District

1950 Hillside Avenue New Hyde Park NY 11040

New Hyde Park, NY 11040

United States

40° 44' 58.4988" N, 73° 40' 50.9196" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

468

Petitioner

Engel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vitale

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, April 3, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Advocates

Porter R. Chandler (Argued the cause for the intervenors-respondents)

William J. Butler (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Bertram B. Daiker (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country."

Question

Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Engel, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

Yes. Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion. This was the first in a series of cases in which the Court used the establishment clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts, which had traditionally been a part of public ceremonies. Despite the passage of time, the decision is still unpopular with a majority of Americans.

Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman

Mon, 19 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

101

Petitioner

Goldlawr, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Heiman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 463 (1962)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1962

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Goldlawr, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1406

None

Benz v. New York State Thruway

Wed, 28 Feb 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

234

Petitioner

Benz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York State Thruway

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 147 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1962

Decided

Monday, March 19, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for New York State Thruway, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Continental Co. v. Union Carbide

Mon, 16 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

304

Petitioner

Continental Co.

Respondent

Union Carbide

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 690 (1962)

Argued

April 16-17, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Continental Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co.

Wed, 18 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

430

Petitioner

Atkinson

Respondent

Sinclair Refining Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 238 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Atkinson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Norris-LaGuardia

None

Labor Board v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corp.

Thu, 16 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ochoa Fertilizer Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 318 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, November 16, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Labor Board, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Campbell v. Hussey

Tue, 14 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hussey

Respondent

Campbell

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 297 (1961)

Argued

November 14-15, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hussey, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 511

None

State Bd. Of Ins. v. Todd Shipyards

Wed, 21 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

144

Petitioner

State Bd. Of Ins.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Todd Shipyards

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 451 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Todd Shipyards, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 1012

None

Griggs v. Allegheny County

Tue, 16 Jan 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Griggs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Allegheny County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 84 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1962

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Griggs, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Simonson v. Granquist

Thu, 18 Jan 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Simonson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Granquist

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 38 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, January 18, 1962

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Simonson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Enochs v. Williams Packing Co.

Wed, 18 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

493

Petitioner

Enochs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Williams Packing Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 1 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 28, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Enochs, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Grumman v. United States

Thu, 19 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

436

Petitioner

Grumman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 288 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, April 19, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Grumman, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Garner v. Louisiana

Wed, 18 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Sitman’s Drug Store

301 Main St.

Baton Rouge, LA

United States

30° 27' 5.4972" N, 91° 11' 15.4068" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

John Burrell Garner

Respondent

Louisiana

Consolidation

Briscoe et al. v. Louisiana, No. 27

Hoston et al. v. Louisiana, No. 28

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 157 (1961)

Granted

Thursday, March 30, 1961

Argued

October 18-19, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1961

Advocates

Jack Greenberg (argued the cause for the petitioners)

John F. Ward, Jr. (argued the cause for Louisiana)

Facts of the Case

These are three consolidated cases where Caucasian and African American patrons participated in “sit ins” at segregated lunch counters in Baton Rouge Louisiana. Each case the patrons merely sat at lunch counters. They were not asked to leave by the restaurants, but were asked to leave by police officers. When the patrons refused to do so, they were arrested and charged with "disturbing the peace." Under Louisiana law, “disturbing the peace” is defined as violent boisterous or disruptive acts, or any other act that unreasonably disturbs the public. The prosecution did not present any evidence that the patrons were boisterous or disruptive in any way. The individuals were convicted in state court and the state supreme court denied relief.

Question

1. Were the patrons’ convictions an unconstitutional enforcement of racial segregation by state power in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

2. Did the patrons’ convictions violate due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment because they were based on insufficient evidence and a highly vague statute?

3. Was the patrons’ right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment violated through the convictions for disorderly conduct?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Garner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No answer. Yes. No answer. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the majority opinion, expressing the views of six Justices reversing the state court convictions. The Supreme Court held that the convictions were so lacking in evidentiary support that they violated due process. Sitting peacefully at a lunch counter that custom dictates is segregated is not evidence of disturbing the peace. The majority found it unnecessary to reach the broader free speech and racial segregation questions.

Justice William O. Douglas concurred, writing that the lunch counters operated under a public license and so the state, in effect, was enforcing a policy of discrimination. Justice Felix Frankfurter concurred in the judgment, writing that the record contained no evidence that the individuals caused a disturbance or alarm to the public. Justice John M. Harlan concurred in the judgment, writing that the Louisiana statute, as applied, was unconstitutionally vague.

Blau v. Lehman

Tue, 12 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Blau

Respondent

Lehman

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 403 (1962)

Argued

December 12-13, 1961

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lehman, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Drake Bakeries v. Bakery Workers

Wed, 18 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

598

Petitioner

Drake Bakeries

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bakery Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 254 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bakery Workers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Hutcheson v. United States

Mon, 06 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hutcheson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 599 (1962)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1961

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. Drum

Wed, 11 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Drum

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

No. 24

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 370 (1962)

Argued

October 11-12, 1961

Decided

Monday, January 15, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Martin v. Walton

Tue, 17 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Walton

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Martin

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 25 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, October 17, 1961

Decided

Monday, November 6, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Walton, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Free v. Bland

Wed, 21 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

205

Petitioner

Free

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bland

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 663 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Free, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Morales v. City Of Galveston

Mon, 23 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

480

Petitioner

Morales

Respondent

City Of Galveston

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 165 (1962)

Argued

April 23-24, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for City Of Galveston, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

In Re Mcconnell

Tue, 10 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

498

Petitioner

In Re Mcconnell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 230 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, April 10, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for In Re Mcconnell, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 401

None

Turner v. City Of Memphis

Tue, 27 Feb 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Turner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Memphis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 350 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1962

Decided

Friday, March 16, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Turner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Idlewild Liquor Corp. v. Epstein

Wed, 28 Feb 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

138

Petitioner

Idlewild Liquor Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Epstein

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 180 MISC

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 713 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Idlewild Liquor Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2281

None

Metlakatla Indians v. Egan

Wed, 13 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Egan

Respondent

Metlakatla Indians

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 45 (1962)

Argued

December 13-14, 1961

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Metlakatla Indians, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 48 U.S.C. 221

None

United States v. Diebold, Inc.

Mon, 23 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

286

Appellee

Diebold, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 654 (1962)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Hoyt v. Florida

Thu, 19 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Florida

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hoyt

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 57 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, October 19, 1961

Decided

Monday, November 20, 1961

Advocates

Herbert B. Ehrmann (Argued the cause for the appellant)

George R. Georgieff (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

A Florida statute automatically exempted women from jury duty and did not place women on jury lists. Women could, however, volunteer and register for jury duty. After an all-male jury convicted Mrs. Hoyt for murdering her husband, she appealed the decision to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Court upheld the conviction.

Question

Did the Florida statute violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Florida, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the statute was based on a reasonable classification and was therefore constitutional. Noting that women were "still regarded as the center of home and family life," the Court found that the states could relieve them from the civic responsibility of jury duty unless they themselves determined that such service was consistent with their own "special responsibilities." The Court held that the case was distinct from other cases involving racial discrimination in jury selection, and that male- female disproportions on jury lists carried no constitutional significance.

Machibroda v. United States

Tue, 05 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Machibroda

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 487 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1961

Decided

Monday, February 19, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Machibroda, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

Split Vote

None

Gilbert v. United States

Tue, 10 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

478

Petitioner

Gilbert

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 650 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, April 10, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Gilbert, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 495

None

Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co.

Tue, 07 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Teamsters Local

Respondent

Lucas Flour Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 95 (1962)

Argued

November 7-8, 1961

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Lucas Flour Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

United States v. Wise

Mon, 16 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

488

Appellee

Wise

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 405 (1962)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Seymour v. Superintendent

Wed, 13 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Seymour

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Superintendent

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 351 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, December 13, 1961

Decided

Monday, January 15, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Seymour, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 34 Stat. 80

None

Silber v. United States

Thu, 19 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

454

Petitioner

Silber

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 717 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, April 19, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Silber, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supreme Court Rules

None

A. & G. Stevedores v. Ellerman Lines

Tue, 20 Feb 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

282

Petitioner

A. & G. Stevedores

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ellerman Lines

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 355 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, February 20, 1962

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for A. & G. Stevedores, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 7: Seventh Amendment

None

Commissioner v. Bilder

Thu, 29 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

384

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bilder

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 499 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, March 29, 1962

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Commissioner, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Gibson v. Florida Legis. Investigation Comm.

Tue, 05 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Florida General Assembly

S. Monroe St. and Apalachee Pkwy Tallahassee FL 32301

Tallahassee, FL 32301

United States

30° 26' 17.4912" N, 84° 16' 50.2536" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gibson

Respondent

Florida Legis. Investigation Comm.

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

372 U.S. 539 (1963)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1961

Reargued:

October 10-11, 1962

Decided

Monday, March 25, 1963

Facts of the Case

In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) received much criticism from state legislators as it pushed ahead with litigation to combat segregation. The State of Florida, in 1959, established a Legislative Investigation Committee to study what were called "subversive organizations." Gibson, president of the Miami branch of the NAACP, was subpoenaed before the committee and asked to produce a membership list of his organization. He refused and was found in contempt.

Question

Did the Florida Committee, in attempting to inform itself about activities of subversive organizations, violate Gibson's right to free speech and association as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

In a close decision, the Court found that Gibson's rights had been violated. In his opinion, Justice Goldberg recognized the important right of states to inform themselves on "legitimate and vital interests." However, even though inquiring about the actions of a group such as the Communist Party may have been one of these legitimate interests, argued Goldberg, Florida did not prove that a "substantial connection" between the Miami NAACP and Communist Party activities existed. Thus, a "compelling and subordinating governmental interest" would not have been served by forcing Gibson to disclose his group's membership list.

Bailey v. Patterson

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:13:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

643

Appellee

Patterson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bailey

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 31 (1962)

Decided

Monday, February 26, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bailey, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Federal Trade Comm'n v. Broch & Co.

Thu, 16 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Federal Trade Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Broch & Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 360 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, November 16, 1961

Decided

Monday, January 15, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Federal Trade Comm'n, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Salem v. United States Lines Co.

Mon, 19 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

283

Petitioner

Salem

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States Lines Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 31 (1962)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 28, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Salem, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Jones, or Death on the High Seas

None

National Labor Relations Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.

Mon, 19 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Respondent

Walton Mfg. Co.

Consolidation

No. 94, NLRB v. Florida Citrus Canners Corp.

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 404 (1962)

Argued

March 19-20, 1962

Decided

Monday, April 9, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Labor Board, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Rusk v. Cort

Wed, 11 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Cort

Respondent

Rusk

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 367 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1961

Reargued:

December 4-5, 1962

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Cort, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Gallegos v. Colorado

Mon, 09 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

475

Petitioner

Gallegos

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Colorado

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 49 (1962)

Argued

Monday, April 9, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Gallegos, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Cramp v. Bd. Of Public Instruction

Mon, 16 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Bd. Of Public Instruction

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Cramp

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 278 (1961)

Argued

Monday, October 16, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Cramp, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Marine Engineers v. Interlake Co.

Mon, 16 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

166

Petitioner

Marine Engineers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Interlake Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 173 (1962)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Marine Engineers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Hanover Bank v. Commissioner

Tue, 27 Feb 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

224

Petitioner

Hanover Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 672 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Hanover Bank, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Glidden Company v. Zdanok

Wed, 21 Feb 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

242

Petitioner

Glidden Company

Respondent

Zdanok

Consolidation

No. 481

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 530 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 1962, Monday, February 26, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Zdanok, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 1, Paragraph 1: Judicial Power

None

Vaughan v. Atkinson

Thu, 22 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

323

Petitioner

Vaughan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Atkinson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 527 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, March 22, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Vaughan, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Labor Board v. Katz

Thu, 22 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

222

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Katz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 736 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, March 22, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Labor Board, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

U.S. v. Union Central Life Ins. Co.

Tue, 07 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Union Central Life Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 291 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for U.S., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Rudolph v. United States

Tue, 03 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

396

Petitioner

Rudolph

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 269 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, April 3, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Guzman v. Pichirilo

Tue, 27 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

358

Petitioner

Guzman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pichirilo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 698 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Guzman, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Goldblatt v. Hempstead

Mon, 15 Jan 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hempstead

Respondent

Goldblatt

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 590 (1962)

Argued

January 15-16, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Hempstead, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez

Tue, 10 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mendoza-Martinez

Respondent

Kennedy

Consolidation

Rusk v. Cort, No. 3

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

372 U.S. 144 (1963)

Argued

October 10-11, 1961

Reargued:

December 4-5, 1962

Decided

Monday, February 18, 1963

Advocates

Bruce J. Terris (Reargued the cause for the appellant)

Thomas R. Davis (Reargued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Francisco Mendoza-Martinez (Martinez) was an American by birth with dual Mexican citizenship. Martinez admitted that to avoid the draft, in 1942, he left the United States for Mexico and did not return until November, 1946. As a result of his deliberate absence, Martinez entered a guilty plea in 1947 to violating Section 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 (the "Act") and served 366 days in prison. Five years after his release, Martinez was issued an arrest and deportation warrant premised on a violation of Section 401(j) of the Act which divested draft dodgers of their U.S. citizenship. Following a dismissal of his appeal from the Attorney General's special inquiry decision stripping him of his U.S. citizenship, Martinez challenged the constitutionality of Section 401(j) in District Court but was defeated. On appeal from the Ninth Circuit's opinion upholding the district court decision, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. This case was decided together with Rusk v. Cort.

Question

Did Section 401(j) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, divesting U.S. citizens of their citizenship for remaining outside the United States during a time of war or national emergency in order to avoid the draft, violate the procedural safeguard of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mendoza-Martinez, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Estoppel

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court began by sustaining the validity of the Government's second action against Martinez since it addressed his lost of citizenship rather than revisiting his self-confessed draft evasion. The Court added, however, that although citizenship duties entail military service, the Government cannot divest citizens of their citizenship as a result of draft evasion alone. The imposition of such a drastic penalty, in the context of a reflexive statutory scheme, violates constitutional due process by denying subjects procedural safeguards such as the opportunity to experience a more incremental penal structure.

Fong Foo v. United States

Tue, 16 Jan 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Fong Foo

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 65

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 141 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1962

Decided

Monday, March 19, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Fong Foo, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Brown Shoe Co. v. United States

Wed, 06 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Brown Shoe Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 294 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1961

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 29

None

United States v. Davis

Wed, 28 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

190

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 268

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 65 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Roper v. United States

Thu, 12 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Roper

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 20 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, October 12, 1961, Monday, October 16, 1961

Decided

Monday, November 6, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.

Tue, 03 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

422

Petitioner

Link

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wabash Railroad Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 626 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, April 3, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Wabash Railroad Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Hamilton v. Alabama

Tue, 17 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hamilton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 52 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, October 17, 1961

Decided

Monday, November 13, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hamilton, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Richards v. United States

Wed, 15 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Richards

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 1 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, November 15, 1961

Decided

Monday, February 26, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

Turnbow v. Commissioner

Wed, 15 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Turnbow

Respondent

Commissioner

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 337 (1961)

Argued

November 15-16, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Commissioner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Lehigh Valley Coop. v. United States

Wed, 17 Jan 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Lehigh Valley Coop.

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 76 (1962)

Argued

January 17-18, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lehigh Valley Coop., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 608

None

Retail Clerks v. Lion Dry Goods

Wed, 17 Jan 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Retail Clerks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lion Dry Goods

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 17 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1962

Decided

Monday, February 26, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Retail Clerks, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Porter v. Aetna Casualty Co.

Wed, 25 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

604

Petitioner

Porter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aetna Casualty Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 159 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Porter, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 3101

None

Hill v. United States

Tue, 05 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hill

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 424 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1961

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

NAACP v. Button

Wed, 08 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Respondent

Button

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

371 U.S. 415 (1963)

Argued

Wednesday, November 8, 1961

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 9, 1962

Decided

Monday, January 14, 1963

Advocates

Robert L. Carter (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Henry T. Wickham (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

The NAACP was prosecuted for violating a Virginia statute which banned "the improper solicitation of any legal or professional business."

Question

Did the law, as applied to the NAACP's activities, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for NAACP, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the activities of the NAACP amounted to "modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit." NAACP-initiated litigation was "a form of political expression" and not "a technique of resolving private differences," argued Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who authored the majority opinion. Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, joined by Justices Potter Stewart and Tom Clark.

United States v. Patrick

Wed, 28 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Patrick

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

372 U.S. 53 (1963)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1962

Reargued:

Thursday, December 6, 1962

Decided

Monday, February 18, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Kake Village v. Egan

Thu, 14 Dec 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Egan

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kake Village

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 60 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, December 14, 1961

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Egan, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Mechling Barge Lines v. U.S.

Wed, 08 Nov 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

U.S.

Respondent

Mechling Barge Lines

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 324 (1961)

Argued

November 8-9, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mechling Barge Lines, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Manual Enterprises v. Day

Mon, 26 Feb 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

123

Petitioner

Manual Enterprises

Respondent

Day

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 478 (1962)

Argued

February 26-27, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Manual Enterprises, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1461

None

Halliburton Oil Well Co. v. Reily

Mon, 26 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Reily

Respondent

Halliburton Oil Well Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

373 U.S. 64 (1963)

Argued

March 26-27, 1962

Reargued:

Monday, December 3, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 13, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Halliburton Oil Well Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Kesler v. Dept. Of Public Safety

Tue, 10 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Dept. Of Public Safety

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kesler

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 153 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1961

Decided

Monday, March 26, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Dept. Of Public Safety, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Nostrand v. Little

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:13:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

571

Appellee

Little

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Nostrand

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 436 (1962)

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Little, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Lynch v. Overholser

Mon, 15 Jan 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

159

Petitioner

Lynch

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Overholser

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 705 (1962)

Argued

Monday, January 15, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lynch, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Statutory Provisions of the District of Columbia

None

Killian v. United States

Tue, 10 Oct 1961 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Killian

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 231 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1961

Advocates

David B. Rothstein (for the petitioner)

Basil R. Pollitt (for the petitioner)

Kevin T. Maroney (for the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Killian, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1001

None

In Re Green

Mon, 09 Apr 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

312

Petitioner

In Re Green

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 689 (1962)

Argued

Monday, April 9, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for In Re Green, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. National Dairy Corp.

Wed, 21 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

National Dairy Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

372 U.S. 29 (1963)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1962

Reargued:

Wednesday, December 5, 1962

Decided

Monday, February 18, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

None

Presser v. United States

mgruhn — Thu, 22 Mar 1962 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

William Presser

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

371 U.S. 71 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, March 22, 1962, Monday, March 26, 1962

Reargued:

Monday, October 8, 1962

Decided

Tuesday, November 13, 1962

Advocates

John Cardinal (for the petitioner at argument and re-argument)

Richard J. Medalie (for the respondent at argument)

Stephen J. Pollak (for the respondent at re-argument)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: None

In a per curiam opinion, the judgment of the court below was affirmed by an equally divided Court.