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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cunningham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 443 (1962)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rickover

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 55

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 111 (1962)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cochran

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 506 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, February 20, 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

Tuesday, February 27, 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

Tuesday, April 24, 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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 400 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Columbia Broadcasting

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 464 (1962)

Argued

Monday, November 13, 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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wood

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 469 (1962)

Argued

Monday, February 19, 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

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Winckler & Smith Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 19 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 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.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Union Carbide

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 690 (1962)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 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.

440

Petitioner

Atkinson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sinclair Refining Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

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.

Appellee

Hussey

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Campbell

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 297 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, November 14, 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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

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)

Argued

October 18-19, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Blau v. Lehman

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Blau

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lehman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 403 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, December 12, 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.

Appellee

Drum

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 24

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 370 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 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